Why the negativity against Ed and the Glazers? Sorry I don't follow

[Rory 7]

Can you tell me the plan of any football club from a football perspective? Planning is short-term from a footballing perspective.

The plan for football at both City and Pool have been well documented. The same is true even at lower league clubs. So yes I can tell you about the plans other clubs put in place. Now. Tell me. What do you think the Glazers plan is for United, the football club?

 

[Rory 7]

Even speaking of the club the statement still stands. No one knows with certainty because none of us are in boardroom meetings. All we do here is guess on the subject according to what we think is an adequate spend every summer

So all fans can judge the owners on is transfer spend?

 

[Josep Dowling]

This is how business works. When they bought the club it was worth about £1.5bn (from memory), it’s now over £3bn. Money makes money, get over it. It’s perfectly possible to buy a house with very little of your own money, when you combine a mortgage with OPM (other peoples money) to cover the deposit. Shall we outlay this as well?

They have overseen the value of the club doubling since they took it over - that’s a good investment.

You keep implying the Glazers has created the club’s increased valuation. That would have happened with or without their takeover. That’s the natural progression to what has happened to the Premier League.

They have of courses added some value with their American style to commercial aspects of the club but to say they have doubled the club’s value is why off the mark.

Also using a mortgage as a comparison is wrong. An individual would be personally liable for the mortgage of their home, as such they hold the risk. Like I said United is a limited company and the shareholders have limited liability. If United went under the Glazers have no personal financial risk.

Do you work in finance or are you the normal financial expert that trolls the internet?

 

[Greck]

So all fans can judge the owners on is transfer spend?

Reread. I said all fans do is guess according to spend. I didn't say it's wise that they do so or remotely correct

 

[Rory 7]

There hasn't been anything resembling a long term strategy.

I agree with your criticisms of clichèd posters. But I agree with you on this even more.

 

[Rory 7]

Reread. I said all fans do is guess according to spend. I didn't say it's wise that they do so or remotely correct

So fans can’t see that other clubs have a plan and we don’t?

 

[Greck]

So fans can’t see that other clubs have a plan and we don’t?

We've been lacking in longterm planning and vision. That much is true. Why I expect the club to hire more football minds to help steer this ship. The club has actually alluded to this in recent briefing. Although that realisation is coming years late

 

[Rory 7]

I'll answer the last question first and you might laugh but simply make sure that it is a platform for durable and increasable turnovers.
Concerning the first question I think that it's more about market shares, the goal is probably to continuously possess a certain proportion of the football industry revenue, it's hard to tell if it's going to be strictly exponential but I'm sure that the owners won't cap it.
For me people need to be cynical when they talk about these subjects and two things are important to remember, investors won't let money on the table and they won't overspend. So when you look at our wage bill, we are one of the top spenders and to me it means that the goal is to challenge in CL and PL, I don't think that they care about actually winning but their budgets are for challengers they probably plan for that level of prize money. I know that for some people the extra 50m-60m aren't huge, for some reason they translate these numbers into transfer purchases, but that's around 8%-9% of our turnovers that's massive and the level of exposure that CL challengers have is a solid foundation for long term commercial deals.

Maybe that’s the problem. They don’t have a plan, just a ‘goal’ as you put it. And a goal they are failing to meet. I agree they likely don’t care if we win but they are failing on their challenger ‘goal’. The ‘increase turnover durably’ piece is more of an objective in my opinion. Again it belies a formal plan or strategy for the Football Club. All of this adds up to short termism, lack of vision and appalling leadership by the owners.

 

[Kemizee]

For all the people defending Woodward's commercial decision not to sign players: are you supporters of the club/players or are you supporters of the Glazer's bank balance?
It's almost as if you are happy that we are not buying new players to inject new blood into the team and instead, putting the money into the pockets of shareholders.
There are some in here who believe that any money saved this year, will be spent the following year - this won't happen.
If it came to spending £200M on Maguire or that money going into the pockets of the Glazers and we get no new players, I'd rather overspend on Maquire.

Jose wanted to spend, in the hope of winning the title. Woodward/Glazers did not want to fund a title challenge and were happy with 4th place.
Anyone who supports the 4th place philosophy of the Glazers, cannot seriously be a MUFC supporter.

Spot on. How intelligent people cannot ever fathom this is beyond me.

There is no saved money anywhere. It goes into the pockets of the parasitic owners.

Unfortunately, some posters are leading professors of MUFC Financial Management Institute instead of prioritising on-field success.

 

[Rory 7]

We've been lacking in longterm planning and vision. That much is true. Why I expect the club to hire more football minds to help steer this ship

That might help but I fear it will only be the latest instalment in the Glazers series of ‘quick fixes’. There is no evidence to suggest they can develop a long term strategy for the Football Club.

 

[POF]

So what would your plan be now if you were the glazers?

Take the responsibility for identifying players or providing "a list" away from the manager. The club needs a sustainable long term recruitment strategy driven by a Director of Football/Sporting Director. Hiring an elite Director of Football should be the main priority.

One thing I really dislike about the current strategy is "we need a centre back". There is so much that goes into constructing a squad that identifying the need for a player in a position is nowhere near enough. Do they have the complementary skills to produce a quality partnership with existing players, do they fit the style of play, are they the right age profile, will they fit the culture of the squad and most importantly, do they have the right mentality to play for United.

Specific players should be identified, not profiles and transfers should be planned so those players are signed at the optimum time to provide value and when they are ready to contribute in the first team. That's a full time role, not a bit part of the manager and MD's roles.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

You keep implying the Glazers has created the club’s increased valuation. That would have happened with or without their takeover. That’s the natural progression to what has happened to the Premier League.

They have of courses added some value with their American style to commercial aspects of the club but to say they have doubled the club’s value is why off the mark.

Also using a mortgage as a comparison is wrong. An individual would be personally liable for the mortgage of their home, as such they hold the risk. Like I said United is a limited company and the shareholders have limited liability. If United went under the Glazers have no personal financial risk.

Do you work in finance or are you the normal financial expert that trolls the internet?

I have bought many houses using commercial mortgages, I’m not taking about buying a house to live it, and so you are not personally liable - hence why rates are higher than for resedential mortgages - and so the comparison is very valid.

Of course the value of the club would have increased in any case, but that’s easy to see in retrospect - can you see what’s going to happen in the next 13 years? Could you have foreseen the mammoth TV deals and rampant commercialism that’s happened over the past decade? Even if you could, they had the business plan, and they saw the opportunity and took it. They have of course added multiple revenue streams that the club did not utilise previously, many of which have been copied by our competitors.

They may not have a personal liability - that’s normal, but if the club becomes dust, they have lost a £3-4bn asset!

 

[JPRouve]

Maybe that’s the problem. They don’t have a plan, just a ‘goal’ as you put it. And a goal they are failing to meet. I agree they likely don’t care if we win but they are failing on their challenger ‘goal’. The ‘increase turnover durably’ piece is more of an objective in my opinion. Again it believes a formal plan or strategy for the Football club. All of this adds up to short termism, lack of vision and appalling leadership by the owners.

Exactly, and that's what I have been saying in this thread. We have legitimate reasons to criticize the owners but it's about their football management competencies, not about money invested or even their lack of ambition. Like Revan said, SAF gave them the worst introduction to football because they bought a club that arguably had the most competent football manager in the world and by manager I'm talking about pure management of every aspects of a club.

Just an example, iirc Mitten reported years ago that United was the only big club to not mingle in agents and scouts conferences. Unless you have an extremely extended scouting network it means that you are going to be late at every party, SAF had his own doors but when he left these logically disappeared.

 

[Revan]

The plan for football at both City and Pool have been well documented. The same is true even at lower league clubs. So yes I can tell you about the plans other clubs put in place. Now. Tell me. What do you think the Glazers plan is for United, the football club?

What is Liverpool's plan then?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I bet if Guardialo was coming to the club, you and most others would say "problem solved". The fact is, he's just another manager.

Nope. Guardiola was shite in his first season and inherited a much better side. He has only improved since breaking premiership spending records. City's bench the last 2 games has been worth over £250m.

The board needed to heavily invest for Jose this Summer. Even if he goes next season! The fact they didn't shows their lack of ambition.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

The Glazers have majority ownership in an asset worth over $2bn. If the club goes under they lose an asset worth $2bn. That is no financial risk?

I find it astounding that fans think the Glazers don't care about the success of the club. It's like you're renting a multi billion dollar property, paying £20m in rent a year and worry that the owners might burn it down one day just for the hell of it.

Point is that finishing top 4 is just as profitable as investing to try and win the league. Top 4 is also less risky, financially speaking as there is less investment required.

 

[Rory 7]

What is Liverpool's plan then?

Pretty obvious to me that they’ve fully gotten behind Klopp’s vision on the footballing side, including youth development and player profile. Look how long they wait to get the right player, all of this is evidence of a plan, much more evidence than the Glazers offer. The Liverpool owners also invested in the stadium, something our guys haven’t. The infrastructure of their club has improved for fans and players. Even a cursory review of Fenway puts the Glazers lack of vision to shame. I should add....it pains me to admit this.

 

[Revan]

You keep implying the Glazers has created the club’s increased valuation. That would have happened with or without their takeover. That’s the natural progression to what has happened to the Premier League.

They have of courses added some value with their American style to commercial aspects of the club but to say they have doubled the club’s value is why off the mark.

Also using a mortgage as a comparison is wrong. An individual would be personally liable for the mortgage of their home, as such they hold the risk. Like I said United is a limited company and the shareholders have limited liability. If United went under the Glazers have no personal financial risk.

Do you work in finance or are you the normal financial expert that trolls the internet?

No club in the world has had the same commercial growth as us since Glazers took over. Not Real, not Barcelona, not even Bayern Munich (who btw, still has the highest commercial revenue). We had 2 people working on commercial aspects of the club, before Glazers came. And two important commercial deals (Nike and Vodafone). We have now an entire new London based team working on that, circa 150 workers.

The money was always going to increase. The TV money. The money coming from commercial deals (which if I am not mistaken, is now bigger than the money coming from TV deal and tickets combined) wasn't going to increase on its own. Ed's and Arnold's team had to work hard for it to happen. No surprise that the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool (American owners too) have been copying us in that aspect.

Maybe the previous Plc would have had a revelation one night, and suddenly decided to hired 1000 people to work on commercial deals. Or maybe they would have continued the previous policy of a couple of big deals, a couple of people working on it, with the revenue stagnating (fact, check the sheets) and in turn getting surpassed by Chelsea. And God help us if the two main shareholders (who controlled 35-40% of the club) had their way on those 3 years we didn't challenge and managed to sack Fergie, as they wished too.

I wonder which one is more likely. I have a guess about it.

About your last point, it is true that they don't have a personal risk. However, United it is by far their biggest asset they own. If United goes bankrupt, they lose the majority of their wealth.

 

[Revan]

Pretty obvious to me that they’ve fully gotten behind Klopp’s vision on the footballing side, including youth development and player profile. Look how long they wait to get the right player, all of this is evidence of a plan, much more evidence than the Glazers offer. The Liverpool owners also invested in the stadium, something our guys haven’t. The infrastructure of their club has improved for fans and players. Even a cursory review if Fenway puts the Glazers lack of vision to shame. I should add....it pains me to admit this.

Since John Henry bought the club, they have won 0 trophies, not even a League Cup. They have finished below us in all but two seasons. They have reached later stages of European competitions less than us. They have spend less than half of the money in transfers compared to us. They have a significantly lower wage bill than us. They have a significantly lower revenue and commercial revenue than us.

Are you sure that you have not mistaken their long term plans based on one summer when they spent big (actually outspent us by a large amount) but then had a negative net spent on both last 2 seasons, and just 8 months ago sold their (back then) best player?

 

[Rory 7]

Since John Henry bought the club, they have won 0 trophies, not even a League Cup. They have finished below us in all but two seasons. They have reached later stages of European competitions less than us. They have spend less than half of the money in transfers compared to us. They have a significantly lower wage bill than us. They have a significantly lower revenue and commercial revenue than us.

Are you sure that you have not mistaken their long term plans based on one summer when they spent big (actually outspent us by a large amount) but then had a negative net spent on both last 2 seasons, and just 8 months ago sold their (back then) best player?

Sadly I see a plan over there, one that’s beginning to bear fruit. That’s why they are being touted as challengers to City this year and we aren’t. Sadly I see no plan at Old Trafford. Do you?

 

[Revan]

Spot on. How intelligent people cannot ever fathom this is beyond me.

There is no saved money anywhere. It goes into the pockets of the parasitic owners.

Unfortunately, some posters are leading professors of MUFC Financial Management Institute instead of prioritising on-field success.

But you're wrong. The money we didn't spend this season didn't go into Glazers pockets. At least not yet. If it goes (I doubt it), we will know it considering that we are a PLC and dividends need to be public. It is as simple as that, and the fact that a lot of people like you seem to not realise it is a catastrophic failure of education system.

 

[Revan]

Sadly I see a plan over there, one that’s beginning to bear fruit. That’s why they are being touted as challengers to City this year and we aren’t. Sadly I see no plan at Old Trafford. Do you?

No, I don't see a plan. Last year, it looked that there was a plan, same after LVG's first season in charge, it all went to nothing. On summer of 2014, Liverpool seemed to have a plan too, it went to nothing soon. Let's wait until Liverpool wins something before we go in all panic mode and claim that they are so well run. Because so far they have been doing worse than us, and winning 2 games in a row doesn't make them have a plan.

City has been the only big club (yep, the feckers are big now) to have had a long term plan on EPL. Since they hired Soriano and Bergeristein, they have been preparing for Guardiola, and the managers they had had some similarities with how Pep likes to play. And then spent a fortune when Pep came, money that no club could have spent based on only the money it generates.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Are you sure that you have not mistaken their long term plans based on one summer when they spent big (actually outspent us by a large amount) but then had a negative net spent on both last 2 seasons, and just 8 months ago sold their (back then) best player?

Especially when they were only able to spend this big because they sold their best player for a huge sum (which was again a huge sum only because Barcelona sold their second best player for a massive sum).

 

[POF]

Point is that finishing top 4 is just as profitable as investing to try and win the league. Top 4 is also less risky, financially speaking as there is less investment required.

Of course it's not. If United finish 4th every year for the next 10 years the value of the club will diminish significantly. United are the global behemoth they are today by dominating English football at the exact moment the money poured in. If they cannot sustain that the club will be nowhere near as valuable.

 

[beedoubleyou]

I love the argument that Ed doesn’t know anything about football - argued by keyboard warriors on a forum who, who mostly don’t know anything about football.

Hey, some people on here have been on the United Stadium Tour, captained their under 9's side and illegally streamed every match. There's a lot of educated opinions.

 

[Revan]

Nope. Guardiola was shite in his first season and inherited a much better side. He has only improved since breaking premiership spending records. City's bench the last 2 games has been worth over £250m.

The board needed to heavily invest for Jose this Summer. Even if he goes next season! The fact they didn't shows their lack of ambition.

Nope. If Jose needed to go next season, they didn't need to invest a single penny on his signings, because next season (same as how LVG didn't fancy the players he had, and Jose didn't fancy players LVG bought) the new manager might have not fancied the players who Jose signed, and suddenly we would have old players on high salaries which need to be replaced. With money we already spent. So better to save the money for next season when things get clarified.

Now, if they knew that Jose has to leave in 1 year, I don't get why they prolonged the misery instead of just firing him. Maybe there have been promises for him which he didn't realise and now is too costly to fire him, maybe the manager we want is not available at the moment, maybe we are analysing the situation and working on restructuring the club, maybe Ed tried to sign those players but they were much more expensive than the club thought, maybe Ed is just incompetent, maybe all of these factors. feck knows! No idea why people are acting like they attend board meetings and have the entire picture clear, when we know feck all.

 

[Rory 7]

No, I don't see a plan. Last year, it looked that there was a plan, same after LVG's first season in charge, it all went to nothing. On summer of 2014, Liverpool seemed to have a plan too, it went to nothing soon. Let's wait until Liverpool wins something before we go in all panic mode and claim that they are so well run. Because so far they have been doing worse than us, and winning 2 games in a row doesn't make them have a plan.

City has been the only big club (yep, the feckers are big now) to have had a long term plan on EPL. Since they hired Soriano and Bergeristein, they have been preparing for Guardiola, and the managers they had had some similarities with how Pep likes to play. And then spent a fortune when Pep came, money that no club could have spent based on only the money it generates.

I don’t know. Last time I looked Liverpool came very very close to winning the league until Slippy G saved the day. Last time I looked Liverpool were very close to winning the CL until Karius saved the day. And last time I looked the bookies have them as second favourites for the PL this year.

Meanwhile our owners have mismanaged the transition to the post Fergie era and continue to chip and change the Football side of things due to their short term focus. And do you know what’s worse? The Glazers had a head start on Fenway. Liverpool are going the opposite direction to us and have been since Fergie left. Our owners are to blame for that. They had a head start on Fenway to keep us on top and yet in the five years since Fergie retired Pool have come scarily close to winning big. A few tin cups at Old Trafford won’t make us feel any better if Pool finally get over the line. Especially if we slip to third in the pecking order. That’s where these owners are bringing us.

 

[Revan]

I don’t know. Last time I looked Liverpool came very very close to winning the league until Slippy G saved the day. Last time I looked Liverpool were very close to winning the CL until Karius saved the day. And last time I looked the bookies hace them as second favourites for the PL this year.

Meanwhile our owners have mismanaged the transition to the post Fergie era and continue to chip and change the Football side of things due to their short term focus. And do you know what’s worse? The Glazers has a head start on Fenway. Liverpool are going he opposite direction to us and have been since Fergie left. Our owners are to blame for that. The had a head start on Fenway to keep us on top and yet in the five years since Fergie retired Pool have come scarily close to winning big. A few tin cups at Old Trafford won’t make us feel any better if Pool finally get over the line. Especially if we slip to third in the pecking order. That’s where these owners are bringing us.

Last time I looked since Slippy G became a hero, we won Europa League, FA Cup and League Cup, while they won as much as Pocchetino has won on his career.

We were second favorites on bookies last season (or was it the season before it, both?), did we have a long term plan back then? Since when being second favorites to win the league (they haven't won it on near 3 decades Btw) is equal to having a long term plan?

 

[Morpheus 7]

You want somebody to buy the club for £3 bil, remove all investment potential, solve all the problems, and give the manager a limitless cheque book?

Seriously what are you on about. I'm explaining why you don't have a clue what's going on when it comes to the Glazers, you proved it with your response. Worst thread ever!

 

[Rory 7]

Last time I looked since Slippy G became a hero, we won Europa League, FA Cup and League Cup, while they won as much as Pocchetino has won on his career.

We were second favorites on bookies last season (or was it the season before it, both?), did we have a long term plan back then? Since when being second favorites to win the league (they haven't won it on near 3 decades Btw) is equal to having a long term plan?

There’s more evidence of progress there than at United. You have to accept that. And there is clear evidence of patient and planned team building. Much more than has been the case at United. We’ll see. I hope they implode and we challenge. I just can’t see that happening anytime soon with the state we are in.

 

[KennyBurner]

The club has generously backed two managers, and allowed them complete freedom to govern football related matters.

I think the problem we have here is that there are too many United fans who jumped on the fairytale bandwagon in the 90s and 2000s, and now simply cannot handle what is happening at the club at the moment, while at the same time having to endure watching two of our biggest historic rivals flourishing. These spoiled united fans are desperate to stick a knife into an object of their dissatisfaction.

We're in a valley of shite right now, but it'll make it all the more satisfying when we return to the top, which will happen. Personally I think Mourinho is the problem with us right now. I think he's all wrong for us, but it's understandable to give him another season to try and either adapt to the traditions of the club, or go somewhere else.

Beautiful comment. I won't lie to you, im definitely one of those fans you have stated above. in general i am having a hard time coming to grips with us not being able to compete but in fairness how can you blame us? The statistics will show you that after the money spent we should be able to compete and not look like an absolute mess. More than 700 million pounds spent after Fergie left and we look worse than Liverpool footballing wise. That's a tough pill for any reasonable fan to swallow.

However my problem really doesn't come from Ed woodward but more from the managers. Im sticking my knife of dissatisfaction in mourinho currently and I do think Im justified. I'd also rather not give him another season whether or not we finish top 4. His style is just not worth it nowadays when the likes of leicester city are able to entertain.

 

[JPRouve]

There’s more evidence of progress there than at United. You have to accept that. And there is clear evidence of patient and planned team building. Much more than has been the case at United. We’ll see. I hope they implode and we challenge. I just can’t see that happening anytime soon with the state we are in.

I feel that you are overrating their plan, when you take into account the context of both clubs in terms of personnel they hired a better manager than we did. I said it from the beginning, I rate Mourinho and his career very highly but unlike many I strongly believe that he wasn't the ideal candidate for two reasons because he didn't fit with our roster and he wasn't going to provide the enthusiasm and fresher that United needed. Losing SAF was and still is a mental injury, it's controversial but I really think that we need joy and enthusiasm more than silverware at the moment, we need to be in a position to overrate young and enthusiastic players, think about the future more than the past. That's why I wanted a young manager and why I want a young squad even if they are flawed and inconsistent.

 

[Rory 7]

I feel that you are overrating their plan, when you take into account the context of both clubs in terms of personnel they hired a better manager than we did. I said it from the beginning, I rate Mourinho and his career very highly but unlike many I strongly believe that he wasn't the ideal candidate for two reasons because he didn't fit with our roster and he wasn't going to provide the enthusiasm and fresher that United needed. Losing SAF was and still is a mental injury, it's controversial but I really think that we need joy and enthusiasm more than silverware at the moment, we need to be in a position to overrate young and enthusiastic players, think about the future more than the past. That's why I wanted a young manager and why I want a young squad even if they are flawed and inconsistent.

I 100% agree with you. On all of the above. I rate Mourinho too but the fact is the Mourinho appointment by the Glazers is the ulimate attempt a 'quick fix', they appointed him on the believe he'd win big quickly. They are learning the reality of football now, quick fixes are a rarity. But thats my point versus Fenway, they are playing a longer game than the Glazers. Our owners are too short-termist.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Of course it's not. If United finish 4th every year for the next 10 years the value of the club will diminish significantly. United are the global behemoth they are today by dominating English football at the exact moment the money poured in. If they cannot sustain that the club will be nowhere near as valuable.

I disagree. Our market share may decrease, in that we'd attract 'slightly' less new fans. But our massive number of global fans will stay high - and that is what makes us so financially rewarding for the Glazers. We are a global marketing machine.

Also you're not factoring the financial risk of investing heavily in an attempt to win the league this season. Easier just to keep ticking along top 4, hopefully win a few cups and watch the money roll in while balancing the books.

How do you think Liverpool have afforded their transfer outlay recently? Top 4 for over 10 years with a few cups. They are slightly smaller scale than us but the same principle imo.

 

[Kemizee]

But you're wrong. The money we didn't spend this season didn't go into Glazers pockets. At least not yet. If it goes (I doubt it), we will know it considering that we are a PLC and dividends need to be public. It is as simple as that, and the fact that a lot of people like you seem to not realise it is a catastrophic failure of education system.

When I said "pocket", I meant anywhere else apart from bolstering the first team squad and the academy. Of what use is a declared dividend to me when we languish in 2nd and 3rd and not rightfully compete for the majors?? Football is first and foremost to me as far as my team is concerned and as long as our humongous profits and is not prioritised on improving our team and secondarily our academies and infrastructure, it will always be in the "pockets of the Glazers" in my opinion. I don't care how else you spin it.

 

[JPRouve]

When I said "pocket", I meant anywhere else apart from bolstering the first team squad and the academy. Of what use is a declared dividend to me when we languish in 2nd and 3rd and not rightfully compete for the majors?? Football is first and foremost to me as far as my team is concerned and as long as our humongous profits and is not prioritised on improving our team and secondarily our academies and infrastructure, it will always be in the "pockets of the Glazers" in my opinion. I don't care how else you spin it.

Our profits aren't humongous, after taxes in 2017 we had a 39m profit.

 

[Revan]

When I said "pocket", I meant anywhere else apart from bolstering the first team squad and the academy. Of what use is a declared dividend to me when we languish in 2nd and 3rd and not rightfully compete for the majors?? Football is first and foremost to me as far as my team is concerned and as long as our humongous profits and is not prioritised on improving our team and secondarily our academies and infrastructure, it will always be in the "pockets of the Glazers" in my opinion. I don't care how else you spin it.

As I said, only the dividend goes to Glazers (and other shareholders), the other money remains in the club and is reinvested, be it on the team, academy, stadium, commercial deals etc.

To be totally fair, some money goes into interest payments (which would have gone in taxes) and a little bit on taxes (would have been more if it wasn't for the interest payments). Regardless all the money combined for dividend, interest payments and taxes is I believe less than 50m pounds, or less than 10% of the money we generate. The other 90%+ is reinvested.

Anyway, even that 10% that goes out is totally normal. Everyone pays taxes bar Catholic Church, and owners of every business get some money from that business, otherwise they wouldn't own it in the first place. Regardless, the money which goes out is not significant (circa 20m) compared to the money which is reinvested (500m+).

Yours (and others) opinion doesn't matter. It isn't a matter of an opinion, it is a matter of facts. It is a totally objective process, United is a PLC which means that they have to declare profits, revenues, dividends, payments etc. And to make it public, which means that anyone can go and read the sheets for itself. So unless you believe that Glazers are falsifying the sheets - which is a big crime and people end in jail for less than that - they aren't pocketing more money than what I said.

 

[Ødegaard]

I have been very impressed with Shaw so far this season, and young is a decent back up.

Signing Fred wasn't a bad thing, we needed more in our midfield and his profile seems to fit (hard-working capable at both doing the job defensively, playing through pressure and getting a through-ball), and if we are to trust Valencia then Dalot as a talented backup isn't a bad move either, but I think most our fanbase could havew said before the season ended that we needed a proper left-back and someone who makes us not fully reliable on playing through our left side in order to become so easy to defend against.
Our priorities should have been left-back and right-winger.



How many of these players did Mourniho specifically request?



Ok



The appointment of Louis Van Gaal was without doubt for the soul purpose of balancing the ship after a disastrous year with Moyes, and to give Giggs what he needed to take over as manager after three years.
This was a gamble that went wrong, but it could have worked. The club invested heavily in players when Van Gaal took over, and for a little while it looked promising.




The club opted to try and steady the ship again, this time with a proven winner. And they back him in the transfer market again. We have a very good side on paper!
Why things are not clicking at the club, are mostly down to Mourinho's management.



Supporting a manager in the transfer market does not include hoarding all the players out there until one is found to be quite decent.

So... You're putting faith in a failed winger who is a adequate backup as left-back, and a extremely injury-prone guy who needs years to get into shape after eating himself fat between injuries who the managers who've had him all say he isn't a great professional, something he has admitted to himself?

We don't know who Mourinho has targeted, those were examples of available players. What we do know is that this transfer round he hasn't been backed.

Van Gaal "steadied" the ship on course for a iceberg. Every single transfer done by LvG or under his tenure was a failure. We couldn't even score 50 goals in his last season and we were just as bad as under Moyes.

The plan was awful.

Good side on paper? We have some good players and a lot of holes in our team.
No right-winger which makes the rwb overworked. No proper lwb which holds us back on the left. Both who make it harder for our already sub-par cb's. We've got huge holes with some great quality here and there. Unless those players are of the Kante-mould then they cannot paper over the cracks.

This conversation is getting us nowhere though, you've decided you are fine with everything but the manager and I'm not about to change my view based on arguments that Shaw is looking good or that someone rates Rojo/Jones/Smalling/Lindelöf as champion-quality cb's.

 

[goin4glory]

Any business owner would try to maximise their investment return with as little leverage as possible. Glazers pulled off a beautiful deal when they bought the club whilst putting the debt on the very business they were buying. In that sense you can’t fault them, that’s just smart business. That said, I agree with you and your very eloquent bolded statement above that people should not be deluded to think they are investing (or backed LVG and Mou during the past transfer windows) to chase trophies. The shift in the transfer policy (no value for money for CBs etc.) this summer and the clumsy briefings Ed/the board give the press are clear evidence of the Glazer’s position. Point is, have to realise the Glazers for what they are.

I do realise what they are, which is precisely why I want them gone. Barca/Bayern/Madrid are all owned by the fans and exist solely to win titles, it's difficult for us to compete with that long term. Then you have the oil clubs City/Chelsea/PSG etc, we're at a huge disadvantage with the Glazers and be better off with new owners.

 

[JPRouve]

As I said, only the dividend goes to Glazers (and other shareholders), the other money remains in the club and is reinvested, be it on the team, academy, stadium, commercial deals etc.

To be totally fair, some money goes into interest payments (which would have gone in taxes) and a little bit on taxes (would have been more if it wasn't for the interest payments). Regardless all the money combined for dividend, interest payments and taxes is I believe less than 50m pounds, or less than 10% of the money we generate. The other 90%+ is reinvested.

Anyway, even that 10% that goes out is totally normal. Everyone pays taxes bar Catholic Church, and owners of every business get some money from that business, otherwise they wouldn't own it in the first place. Regardless, the money which goes out is not significant (circa 20m) compared to the money which is reinvested (500m+).

25m in financial costs, 17m in taxes and then earnings per share of 0.24£. If I'm not mistaken.