How do you think stadium improvements happen? They don't wait for a Russian or Saudi to come in. Are you being serious?
The Saudi Takeover Rumor Thread
- Thread starter C3Pique
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
How do you think stadium improvements happen? They don't wait for a Russian or Saudi to come in. Are you being serious?
They cost a feckload of money and clubs curb on field spending. See Spurs and Arsenal.
That's how they happen.
Yeh sod it come on you Saudi’s buy our club, wipe out the debts, change the name of the stadium to ~^~~__~~…~~…^_~ and buy us a few decent players.
Yeh I love their human rights record and I run my car as a necessity! Football and Manchester United might be important but there are far more important things in life than Football and Manchester United.
Having their money will forever taint our club and they can shove any ideas of buying our club.
I suppose it bears repeating: the idea that a Saudi takeover is the only viable "strategy" for catching up to City doesn't have any merit. We have the second highest wage bill in world football. We've spent more on transfers than anyone bar two teams since SAF retired. And our old rivals, the ones whose feckin' perch we took over, are now back in contention after some seasons with sound investments and good management on the football side. Last I checked they haven't been taken over by the Saudis or anyone comparable. But those who entertain this idea choose to ignore all the above.
The Glazers aren't the problem in anything but one sense: as owners they're ultimately responsible for hiring the right people on the football side. In terms of being "leeches", what they've done over the past six seasons doesn't explain our predicament at all. Not in the slightest. The numbers are there for all to see - but, again, some people choose to ignore this, harping on about the debt as if the last twenty years never happened.
The Glazers aren't the problem in anything but one sense: as owners they're ultimately responsible for hiring the right people on the football side. In terms of being "leeches", what they've done over the past six seasons doesn't explain our predicament at all. Not in the slightest. The numbers are there for all to see - but, again, some people choose to ignore this, harping on about the debt as if the last twenty years never happened.
Have the Glazers or Ed done anything to inspire you with confidence that they are capable of putting a proper football structure in place?
I really dislike the Saudis and everything they stand for but this club needs a serious change from the top down.
i agree. Even the new saudi overlords would know that they need to have football men running the football side of things.
Yes, that's why they hand managers three and four year contracts because at the end of those four years, the end result is they want the league title. Leading up to the last season, you clear out the deadwood and bringing in replacements that will fight for the team and have genuine quality/potential, get them used to the tactics and away you go.
Where the feck have I said anything about top 4? Absolutely nowhere, you're making it up to suit your agenda, surprise surprise. Top red
I've had my season ticket 13 seasons now, I think I know what realistic expectations to have of this squad and what can be achieved over a prolonged period, if we back the manager properly and give him time to do it, with the correct structure in place. Not this one season shite you're coming out with because you can't handle the club not winning things, top red indeed 
I changed no goalposts, you named clubs, I merely told you the situation they find themselves in season after season. Of course Ole isn't the only manager out there, but he's the only one who's got solid managerial experience and knows the club inside and out, his tactics also match the way the club should play. To sack him after a full season if he doesn't win the league would be disgraceful and matchday going fans would start turning on the club, you cannot build longevity from sacking manager after manager just because he doesn't win the league. Yes I did see how we sacked LvG and it was an utter disgrace, yes he should've been sacked but there's a respectful manner in doing so, not just after winning a trophy. Those managers with the right pedigree sure were lining up sir, we had them flocking at our door and we picked a dud. We picked a manager who the legendary Sir Bobby Charlton reportedly didn't want at the club and one of the greatest managers ever, Sir Alex Ferguson didn't want replacing him when he retired. You can have as many managers as you want applying for the job, if they don't fit the profile of a Manchester United manager, it's pointless them applying, it's why we're in this current predicament.
If there's one thing the Saudis love it's nepotism. They have more money than sense.
The way they run their business ventures is that they place their own in charge, but they have enough money to keep failing and eventually getting it right.
Yes, that's why they hand managers three and four year contracts because at the end of those four years, the end result is they want the league title. Leading up to the last season, you clear out the deadwood and bringing in replacements that will fight for the team and have genuine quality/potential, get them used to the tactics and away you go.
Where the feck have I said anything about top 4? Absolutely nowhere, you're making it up to suit your agenda, surprise surprise. Top red
I changed no goalposts, you named clubs, I merely told you the situation they find themselves in season after season. Of course Ole isn't the only manager out there, but he's the only one who's got solid managerial experience and knows the club inside and out, his tactics also match the way the club should play. To sack him after a full season if he doesn't win the league would be disgraceful and matchday going fans would start turning on the club, you cannot build longevity from sacking manager after manager just because he doesn't win the league. Yes I did see how we sacked LvG and it was an utter disgrace, yes he should've been sacked but there's a respectful manner in doing so, not just after winning a trophy. Those managers with the right pedigree sure were lining up sir, we had them flocking at our door and we picked a dud. We picked a manager who the legendary Sir Bobby Charlton reportedly didn't want at the club and one of the greatest managers ever, Sir Alex Ferguson didn't want replacing him when he retired. You can have as many managers as you want applying for the job, if they don't fit the profile of a Manchester United manager, it's pointless them applying, it's why we're in this current predicament.
Not as of yet, no.
I was feeling vaguely optimistic when reports began surfacing regarding the DoF, but they seen largely to have petered out.
They might as well not have bothered doing this season, maybe they should sack their manager
I dont even blame Ed anymore, thats like blaming Young for being shit...Young was always shit and Ed was always an investment banker.
The buck stops with the Glazers on this one, they hired him and they are keeping him in a job, and to them his job isnt about winning titles, its about making them money
Well Ashley Young is still playing and is captain of Man Utd I would say that the squad really shows how lacking it has been.
We have spent £800m on players since Fergie retired and we have the second biggest wage bill in world football!
The fact that Ashley Young is still starting games for us at fullback is demonstrative of a lack of competence, not a lack of investment.
Bayern paid off their stadium 15 years early. They bought accordingly and had good success in that time.
Should go without saying, a club like United that is well run has the ability pay off stadium improvements or a new stadium as well as buy players. Do you want to check how much Dortmund paid for Sancho, or how much Perisic cost Inter or how much Son cost Spurs?
I agree with you about the lack of competence but the fact remains that from 2008-2017 we have generated 2x what our competition has generated but only spent 30% of it on players, our competition has spent 55-65%.. that is diabolical so the fact stands without the Glazers we would have spent twice what we have spent over that time and our squad would be in a a totally different state.
I dont want the Saudis but if it would mean we could spent all our earnings on players I am all for it.
I do not believe Man United will ever be an elite team without new ownership.
Barca and Real make 15-20% more revenue than us and can reinvest every penny back into the team.
City and PSG make within 10% of us and are actually subsidized with investment from their owners.
You cannot think a club that needs to post profits and service debt can consistently compete with the above.
Barca and Real make 15-20% more revenue than us and can reinvest every penny back into the team.
City and PSG make within 10% of us and are actually subsidized with investment from their owners.
You cannot think a club that needs to post profits and service debt can consistently compete with the above.
Think this deserves a place in this thread:
Our decline started 10 years ago. The summer when we sold Ronaldo to Madrid and Tevez went to City. Rather than reinvest the Ronaldo money on world class talent, that money went on servicing the debt at the time which stood at £700 million. Yes, the Glazer debt. As a result we ended up with Owen, Valencia and Obertan; three players who were nowhere near good enough for the standards of Manchester United.
Fast forward a few years and we started to hear the no value in transfer market line. While City were buying the likes of Aguero, Silva, Tevez, Toure, we were buying Jones, Young, Buttner etc. Average midtable dross. The no value in the transfer market line came directly from the Glazers! We missed out on Hazard at that time because the Glazers weren't willing to pay his agent £5 million at the time!
OT is starting to look dated, yet the Glazers have shown zero interest in investing in the stadium. The reason why OT hasn't been updated is because we are still £500 million in debt. Are we going to borrow £500 million to fund an OT stadium redevelopment when we are half a billion in debt? The answer is clearly no. The Glazer debt is the main barrier to any future OT redevelopment.
The last 6 years are just the consequence of years of under investment from 2005 to 2013. That is down to the Glazers. The Glazers were lucky that they had SAF running the club in the early years, however once he retired they were badly exposed. It is the reason why we are now panic buying players, often paying over the odds in the process.
Ultimately, the Glazers are the root cause of our decline and until they go I can't see how things are going to get better.
So we’re just taking for a fact that Ole will be sacked by the Saudis.
Also, you’re basically saying - let’s stick with the Glazers, guys, the others will be too ruthless for our liking. Good point, gotta say.
Apparently so if he doesn't win the league under them. Say he doesn't win the league and city do, does that mean Klopp should be sacked by Liverpool?
Where have I said we should stick with the Glazers? No where you will find. I dont Saudis in charge because of how they work, look at the poor journalist for instance. I've not said anything about them being too ruthless, we have to have realistic expectation though, people saying Ole should be sacked next summer if he hasn't won the league is absolutely ridiculous.
No one is saying that.
feck this shit.
Spot on they are a massive weight on our shoulders
In London marathon terms we would be on of those elite athletes trying to win the race but running it in a deep sea divers suit.
Very well put mate. A cracking post.
Totally agree with this post . Our rebuilding should have started atleast couple of years before Sir Alex left .
I'm laughing because you're trying to separate two things that are related.
For me this is very simple, I obviously want the club to be successful, but if I have to choose between no success and success as a result of unlimited resources because the club has become a PR campaign for one of the worst regimes in the world, then no success it is.
I think back at the days when Murdoch failed with his takeover attempts, the consequences it would have for English football and United, and the amount of United supporters who protested against the takeover even though it probably would've resulted in more trophies. Then I think of Manchester City and Thaksin, how the supporters were happy to ignore his crimes, simply because he was going to finance players so they could win trophies. Interesting difference.
Bit surprised that it's taken such a short time for United supporters to go down the same path, willing to accept the club as nothing more than a PR campaign, a shiny new toy, for one of the worst regimes in the world. First of all, where's the fun of being in a situation where you can just spend money without consequence in order to win, it takes away half the point. City are there by pure coincidence, not because they laid the foundation and built on it, slightly different paths and it could've been Everton instead, it's meaningless.
As a PLC, prior to the takeover, it's not like the priority was success over money. It was always a balance between investment and churning out profits, taking advantage of every opportunity to cash in. If a player became available that Fergie wanted, it would have to be approved by the board as a special circumstance and it would come out of next years transfer budget. Fergie loathed it, according to him it was easier working under the Glazers.
In terms of investment under the current ownership. Since Fergie retired we've spent £670mill on transfer fees, not to mention the free transfers of Sanchez and Zlatan, and we now have one of the highest wage bills in Europe, it should be clear to everyone that we've invested heavily in players.
The issue is sure as hell not lack of investment, it's not the state of the training facilities and it's not the state of Old Trafford.
There's no reason whatsoever why we couldn't have invested close to £700mill in 5 years on better players, it's not like the structure of the club prevented it. The structure, albeit with different people, is the same as it was under Fergie. The manager identifies the players and the club tries to sign them. Wrong manager was picked, wrong players were identified and signed.
Our aim, seemingly verified by Ole, is now to change the structure and bring in a sporting director which will ensure that the club will sign players that suit an overall plan, then hire managers based on that, Mourinho was against it.
This whole "We can't challenge unless we get unlimited funds from Saudis" agenda is absurd, people thought we couldn't challenge Chelsea either when they were given unlimited funds from Abramovich.
Why not just support City instead ?
Fully agree.
Our summer in 2009 was a disgrace.
We should have done much more that window.
We didn't use Real's interest in Ronaldo at all to get their cast offs. Well Inter/Bayern did and made the UCL final that season.
I don't care how bad it gets, i don't want the Saudis anywhere near us.
There is a very big difference between a businessman or government who might inadvertently cause collateral damage somewhere down the chain, and an oppressive dictatorship who directly order barbaric methods of torture, murder and worse to enforce their authority over their own people. I couldn't stomach us being used as a PR tool in that.
There is a very big difference between a businessman or government who might inadvertently cause collateral damage somewhere down the chain, and an oppressive dictatorship who directly order barbaric methods of torture, murder and worse to enforce their authority over their own people. I couldn't stomach us being used as a PR tool in that.
Yes, that's all true. But when was the last time the Glazers stoned a woman to death or mutilated a journalist, or executed someone for being gay?
The last two responses sum it up. We don't need murderers at the helm to be successful again. We just need better decisions being made.
They haven't been made in the past 6 years, what leads you to believe that will change anytime soon?
We have the money to spend on players now, we dont need money from Saudi Arabia. What we do need is someone at the helm who knows football. And I mean a DoF.
Great post.
Real did us over back in 2009. Not only did they take Ronaldo, but they took Benzema too who we were linked with and we would have probably signed. It’s madness how the club didn’t tell Real to back off Benzema and we’d sell them Ronaldo then.
Not signing Robben was stupid. But even in 2009 we were linked with Villa, Silva and Aguero. It was a disastrous window.
Thank you for a great post
Can you publish this somehow? Very well done.
I am still optimistic, but it's sports and why not be? I will always enjoy the ride. But, your last sentence hurts, the truth tends to.
People get stoned and executed every day in the world. And I bet you the Glazers would happily witness such a scene if that gains them money. They are businessmen.
So I think it's time for us fans to go "Nothing personal, it's just business" after all. The Glazers have been bad owners, so feck them. If the Arabs can do the better job for us, then we will gladly have them as owners and don't care if they even have freaking secret holocausts. That's how the world goes around, mate.
Well-made point, my friend. The ones who argue against the Saudi take-over said we have invested, just not wisely. That might be true but when the hell would we become wise? The Glazers leadership have sucked ever since 2009, and 10 years passed... Nothing changed! As long as they are here, Woody would still be the one holding all the power, any sporting director would just be a Yes man to him. And Ole, despite being our manager, is just a PR man for Woodward. He says all the nice things in media about United value and how we need to be "ruthless". But in reality he plays Young and Lingard all the time, while extending contracts for Phil Jones. Ole is a PR man for the board, not the manager from what I have seen. It's the board and Woodward who triggered these situations in the first place, and they need to go.
The ones who defend them til death while using the Saudi "crime" as a strawman lacks real evidence on how the club would become worse. All they give out is moral views from what I have seen in this thread. And this world doesn't revolve around moral, friends. It revolves around money and success. So they can slaughter, stone, decapitate...or whatever to their people. I couldn't care less if it doesn't harm us and even make us more successful/profitable. That's just how the world is.
This is a great post and I'm sorry I can't give it the response it properly deserves right now. But I will bullet point a few things.
The main thing I want at United is change. I don't particularly want the Saudi's. What I want is us to be able to compete with the best. Yes we've spent massively, and we should've spent much better than we have. However, we've also spent a much smaller percentage of our turnover compared to every other top club. We don't need a sugar daddy, we just need to not have owners pumping money out of us. If we spent the 70%odd of our turnover on players like City do, we'd have spent even more than we have.
Obviously the issue would then be that we've spent it on more crap. So yes, in a nutshell, the problem isn't how much we've spent, it's who we've spent it on.
Which like you say is the managers fault, and the managers have been picked by our current board. Which goes back to what I originally want. I want change. I want competency at that level in our club. I want a board that isn't happy with top 4 and CL money that comes with it.
You say the structure is the same as it was with Fergie, but footballs changed. You don't get managers in place for 25 years anymore. And Woodward doesn't have the same nous Gill has. So a previously successful structure had to change
- Status