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

[goin4glory]

No we don’t. Ed even came out and said if the right type of player is available ie Varane, then they would happily sanction it. So no, we don’t know they didn’t want to invest and if anything sounds like they did, not to mention we spent roughly 70 mil on 2 players this summer.

The dildo brothers over at West Ham come out every year when it's season ticket renewal time and tell the fans they'll spend big money on the right players and have almost always brought in dross.

Everyone in world football laughs at the idea of Madrid selling us Varane but some of our fans think this was possible. Woodward may as well offer 100m for Messi while he's at it and then tell everyone he tried. Ridiculous.

 

[Cassidy]

Whilst I don't think the Glazers are the best of people etc, since we brought in Jose:

Pogba (105m)
Lukaku (85m)
Fred (59m)
Matic (45m)
Bailly (38m)
Lindelöf (35m)
Dalot (22m)
Sanchez(swap deal)

I mean that been quite an investment including breaking the transfer record for Pogba, beating Chelsea to Lukaku and City to Sanchez. This summer wasn't good though granted but it seems they are willing to spend the money for the right players.

 

[crossy1686]

Whilst I don't think the Glazers are the best of people etc, since we brought in Jose:

Pogba (105m)
Lukaku (85m)
Fred (59m)
Matic (45m)
Bailly (38m)
Lindelöf (35m)
Dalot (22m)
Sanchez(swap deal)

I mean that been quite an investment including breaking the transfer record for Pogba, beating Chelsea to Lukaku and City to Sanchez. This summer wasn't good though granted but it seems they are willing to spend the money for the right players.

They only spend what the market dictates the players are worth. They know they can't sit on a record TV money and not throw some of it around. Considering we're the most commercially successful team in team in the world, most supported and have the highest revenue, we spend money like we're any other team in the PL. It's a joke, we could replace our whole team next summer and still have some change left over.

 

[Cloudface]

Since when is that a fact or even a rumor?

You know what, I was almost certain LvG said something to that effect. But looking for anything to back that up, it appears it was all in my head

I stand by the point that the idea Mourinho wouldn't want a Mane type player from three years ago as ludicrous though.

 

[Cloudface]

If they’d have bought Pogba from a team in Nigeria then that would be relevant.

As it happens, United paid €105 million euros to Juventus for pogba.

It's weird how the preference for which currency people want to use varies according to which argument people want to make. It's hard to keep track.

 

[Cassidy]

They only spend what the market dictates the players are worth. They know they can't sit on a record TV money and not throw some of it around. Considering we're the most commercially successful team in team in the world, most supported and have the highest revenue, we spend money like we're any other team in the PL. It's a joke, we could replace our whole team next summer and still have some change left over.

No we couldn't

 

[Revan]

They only spend what the market dictates the players are worth. They know they can't sit on a record TV money and not throw some of it around. Considering we're the most commercially successful team in team in the world, most supported and have the highest revenue, we spend money like we're any other team in the PL. It's a joke, we could replace our whole team next summer and still have some change left over.

Tell me what are you smoking?

We have spent more money that any other club in the world - bar City - on transfers since Fergie left.
We have the highest wage bill in the league (though City might have it a bit higher considering that some of their non player employers are payed from their parent company, a sum of money which isn't documented).
We have a revenue of circa 700m, which on current transfer market means that you can not sign nowhere to a full team, even if the feckers decide to play free for you, and you sack all the other 700 or so other employers. And our EDIBTA for last year was circa 200m, remove 45-50m on dividends, interest payments and taxes and you have 150m pounds. From which half of it we owned to other clubs from previous years transfers. I guess something similar would be for this season too, so our ability to spend is nowhere near as big as many people are making up. We can spend around as much as Barca (which we have slightly outspent on transfers since SAF left) and Real (whom we have outspent on transfers for half a billion pounds). Theoretically, more than City, but they play under a different set of rules, and their owner puts money into the club. We cannot change the squad every year, heck we cannot sign 2 Pogbas every year (without selling something).

 

[crossy1686]

No we couldn't

If we sold all our current players and used what ever transfer budget we've got, we could do it with ease.

 

[Cassidy]

If we sold all our current players and used what ever transfer budget we've got, we could do it with ease.

Realistically it would not be feasible, especially with a short transfer window to boot.

 

[crossy1686]

Tell me what are you smoking?

We have spent more money that any other club in the world - bar City - on transfers since Fergie left.
We have the highest wage bill in the league (though City might have it a bit higher considering that some of their non player employers are payed from their parent company, a sum of money which isn't documented).
We have a revenue of circa 700m, which on current transfer market means that you can not sign nowhere to a full team, even if the feckers decide to play for you, and you sack all the other 700 or so employers. And our EDIBTA for last year was circa 200m, remove 45-50m on dividends, interest payments and taxes and you have 150m pounds. From which half of it we owned to other clubs from previous years transfers. I guess something similar would be for this season too, so our ability to spend is nowhere near as big as many people are making up. We can spend around as much as Barca (which we have slightly outspent on transfers since SAF left) and Real (whom we have outspent on transfers for half a billion pounds). Theoretically, more than City, but they play under a different set of rules, and their owner puts money into the club. We cannot change the squad every year, heck we cannot sign 2 Pogbas every year (without selling something).

We could easily sell our first 11 and replace them next summer if we wanted to, not that we would or should.

 

[MUFC OK]

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would they be interested only on seeing us on these 'pointless' lists when they actually own 80% of the club, which is around 2.5b pounds at the moment. And why would they want to raise the value of the club to be impossible for someone to buy, when the entire point is to raise the value of the club in order to sell stocks and so get money for it? You actually realize that they own most of the stocks and control the board, so at any moment can decide to remove United from stock-exchange, if they just don't want to sell it.

On dividends (as in, the money that goes to Glazers' pockets) they are getting circa 20m per year, which is around 3% of the revenue. Around the same goes also on interest payments (which would have gone anyway on tax payments), and I guess that a bit goes on tax payments. The other 90% of the money is either reinvested each year on the club or some of it goes into cash reserves (I believe we have circa 300m there), like it or not, and no conspiracy theory which makes absolutely no sense changes it.

You're saying that's all they've taken out of the cub?..

If you don't want to sell an asset, you price anyone out of being able to buy it. Why would they do this? Because football is still globalising and growing as a commercial product, they know there is value to be gained yet still through ownership. Since their takeover they have taken £1bn out of the club in dividends and to pay debt of their own. Who's to say they couldn't take out a further £2bn in say the next 10 years at this rate? Floating the club on the NYSE and pointing to charts is good for attracting further investment from sponsors and demonstrating the might of the brand, plus they are businessmen so this kind of thing is their passion rather than the league table.

I expect one possibility is that in future, the top clubs negotiate their own broadcasting rights deals. As the biggest draw imagine the size of deal United could get it could be a further 1 or 2bn, this sort of thing is probably factored into the valuation. If they are not in it for huge personal financial gain and aren't proportionately taking much money out, why do you suggest they are here? They do not wish to sell up at all.

 

[Revan]

We could easily sell our first 11 and replace them next summer if we wanted to, not that we would or should.

Every club can do it, it doesn't mean anything. Heck we can sell Pogba, and buy 1000 players with the money we got for him.

So, what is your point?

 

[VanGaalyTime]

Tell me what are you smoking?

We have spent more money that any other club in the world - bar City - on transfers since Fergie left.
We have the highest wage bill in the league (though City might have it a bit higher considering that some of their non player employers are payed from their parent company, a sum of money which isn't documented).
We have a revenue of circa 700m, which on current transfer market means that you can not sign nowhere to a full team, even if the feckers decide to play free for you, and you sack all the other 700 or so other employers. And our EDIBTA for last year was circa 200m, remove 45-50m on dividends, interest payments and taxes and you have 150m pounds. From which half of it we owned to other clubs from previous years transfers. I guess something similar would be for this season too, so our ability to spend is nowhere near as big as many people are making up. We can spend around as much as Barca (which we have slightly outspent on transfers since SAF left) and Real (whom we have outspent on transfers for half a billion pounds). Theoretically, more than City, but they play under a different set of rules, and their owner puts money into the club. We cannot change the squad every year, heck we cannot sign 2 Pogbas every year (without selling something).

I understand the financial aspect of it somewhat. I think the main issue is that Woodward says one thing and then does another. He says United can do anything they want in the market. He says they can buy Varane and places stupid stories in the papers basically detailing his moronic behaviour throughout the summer. "We tried to get Varane but mean Madrid said no". Another issue that you breezed past is the interest payments and dividends. Why in the living feck are we paying Glazers dividends! They've taken almost a billion pounds out of the club and are preventing us spending according to our wealth. It's disgusting they're even able to show their faces at Old Trafford. Though I don't imagine they will keep doing that if the fans turn on them.

 

[Champagne Football]

Jose has never spent 100million on a player. Such a weird thing to criticise him for. And do you not think Mourinho would not bite someones arm off for a player like Mane? At 30million especially? Considering his similar profile to Willian who Jose loves? In fact didn't the board veto LVG's interest in Mane as he wasn't fashionable enough? But we should trust Ed right?

48 million on Shevchecnko would be at least 150 million in todays market. 40 million on Drogba would be 80 million in today's market. Essien was 40 million which easily is 80 million today. Then the likes of Diego Costa and Fabregas would have been around 70 million today. Then you have Pogba 90 million a couple of years ago which is 120 million today. Lukaku 85 million etc so he has easily spent that on a player when you consider how much 100 million was a few years back.
I wasn't hugely for Jose to come here but since he arrived I've been his biggest backer. But when you give 300 million to someone to spend and they are still whinging how awful you are treating them then all you can really take from that is that they don't fancy Manchester and want the 20 million severance cash paid up so that they can do one to the sunshine again. But I think Jose will come to his senses and realise that if he downs tools until he gets his 20 million goodbye money at Utd then not only is his reputation permanently ruined in England but his legacy will be ruined also so hopefully he realises that and doesn't try to do a Chelsea part 2 on us. He can still do good things here so no panic just yet.

Right now everyone wants Mane. But you'd have been laughed at for suggesting we buy him when Liverpool bought him and Jose had no interest at the time. Van Gaal was crazy to buy Mane but the word at the time was that the draw to play for Klopp was too big and it was all agreed long before the transfer window came. But Mourinho was not working then and had endless time to scout players and Mane was never on his radar. If I can remember there was a few mutterings of bringing in Neymar when Jose arrived but Ed and the board would have demanded Jose first look at Depay, Januzaj, Martial and Rashford before deciding if he needed a winger or not so I don't think a winger was priority that summer. Same with Maguire. A 15 million Hull City overrated Lump he was seen as a year ago where Jose demanded Lindelof for 30 milion instead yet was throwing a hissy fit to get him for 85 million a year later based on 2 great games in the world cup. There's many more examples but can't be arsed thinking of them all.

 

[Revan]

You're saying that's all they've taken out of the cub?..

On the last few years, yes. There has also been a similar amount going into interest payments, but I am lead to believe that it would have gone on tax payments anyway. Some accountant can correct me.

If you don't want to sell an asset, you price anyone out of being able to buy it. Why would they do this? Because football is still globalising and growing as a commercial product, they know there is value to be gained yet still through ownership. Since their takeover they have taken £1bn out of the club in dividends and to pay debt of their own. Who's to say they couldn't take out a further £2bn in say the next 10 years at this rate? Floating the club on the NYSE and pointing to charts is good for attracting further investment from sponsors and demonstrating the might of the brand, plus they are businessmen so this kind of thing is their passion rather than the league table.

The number should be significantly lower, though likely more than half a billion, which is still a gigantic number. Of course, some of the money which went into debt/interest payments would have gone on tax payments instead, and if it was under the previous PLC, some of the money would have gone into dividends (they took dividends too, believe it or not). This also doesn't count how much money they brought to the club by 'whoring' the club all over the world. Someone believes a lot, someone says none, we will never know. What we know though, is that commercial department has increased from 2 to 150+ workers, so I guess that the number is significant.

I don't think that this kind of thing is their passion. They own around 2.5b pounds on United, which should be more than all their other assets combined. If United fails, it is game over for them too. Which is why I believe that their number one priority is to make the United's shares as valuable as possible. On effect they bought United for 300m or so (the PIK payments) and they already own 2.5b which is almost 10 times as what they invested (+ they got some money, less than 100m on dividends). They are multi-billionaires cause of United, and United is this rich cause we have been so good at footy. Would they plan work if we continue being shit? I don't think so, which is why I believe that unless they are planning to sell the club, they are going to continue throwing money (club's money) on the club,

 

[JPRouve]

They only spend what the market dictates the players are worth. They know they can't sit on a record TV money and not throw some of it around. Considering we're the most commercially successful team in team in the world, most supported and have the highest revenue, we spend money like we're any other team in the PL. It's a joke, we could replace our whole team next summer and still have some change left over.

In 2017 United made a 39m£ profit after taxes. People are overestimating what richest actually mean.

 

[Bestietom]

The way I see it is they are pushing Mourinho into getting the best out of what he has, which unfortunately is not good enough.
We still have lots of deadwood to get rid of, and we cannot keep paying high wages to some that are just not United quality.

 

[Revan]

I understand the financial aspect of it somewhat. I think the main issue is that Woodward says one thing and then does another. He says United can do anything they want in the market. He says they can buy Varane and places stupid stories in the papers basically detailing his moronic behaviour throughout the summer. "We tried to get Varane but mean Madrid said no". Another issue that you breezed past is the interest payments and dividends. Why in the living feck are we paying Glazers dividends! They've taken almost a billion pounds out of the club and are preventing us spending according to our wealth. It's disgusting they're even able to show their faces at Old Trafford. Though I don't imagine they will keep doing that if the fans turn on them.

Short answer: cause they control 80% of shares, and the board which gives them the power to do so. United is their asset. Not yours, not mine, not of fans, not of city of Manchester. Sad, but true.
Longer answer: cause the entire point of owning a business (we are a business for the last 3 decades) is to get money from it. Typically (though not always) dividends make investors invest on the company. That in turn increases the shares of the club. If you invested money in United 5 times ago, now it would have been doubled + you would have got a small dividend from it. Now, I have no idea if Glazers give dividends cause they want those money (which is a tiny bit compared to the stocks they own) or in order to show to investors that we're so rich, and in turn increase the value of shares. I guess both, but yeah, companies who don't give dividends usually don't increase much their value. Unless you're Amazon, you can lose money for 2 decades and become one of the biggest companies in the world.

 

[Jcrossley94]

It's weird how the preference for which currency people want to use varies according to which argument people want to make. It's hard to keep track.

I think a lot of it is down to pedantry on my behalf (sorry)

But I do think it seems to be accepted practice to put transfers to and from Europe in euros

 

[TrueRed79]

Anyone in this thread who has backed Ed/Glazers literally have short memories and don't remember how they pilfered the club for years. Not only using Fergie's genius, they also let the academy and scouting system go to rack and ruins. Underinvested in the senior side. Laid the club with hundreds of millions of pounds in debt. Had no succession plan when Fergie retired and have stumbled their way to the situation we are in now. They are the reason threads like this are becoming more common. If you can't see that, then you are blind. I think people don't see it because of the money invested and forget that it was invested with reckless abandon. Again, that's on them.

 

[crossy1686]

Every club can do it, it doesn't mean anything. Heck we can sell Pogba, and buy 1000 players with the money we got for him.

So, what is your point?

That has been taken out of context. You'll have to go back and see my previous messages.

 

[Revan]

That has been taken out of context. You'll have to go back and see my previous messages.

Ok, without doing it, I would say that 'it is extremely hard, pretty much infeasible to replace an entire squad within a transfer window, and as a result, the new squad to be as good, let alone better'. What can be done though, is to gradually improve in the squad, same as we have been doing.

This summer though, for whatever reasons, we didn't improve as much as we should (Fred, Dalot and the return of Pereira). It remains to be seen if it was part of a longer plan, or simple incompetency.

 

[Minimalist]

In short, it’s dumb. No they’re not (likely) the best people on the planet to run Manchester United but they are clearly not at fault for the lack of enjoyment we currently feel with the team. And that is personally all I care about.

The manager is more at fault than any of these people. We hired the wrong man three times. That’s the only fault they (the board etc) have made. But aside from Moyes, there was plenty of reasons for hiring both LVG and Mourinho - but ultimately they were wrong choices.

 

[Revan]

In short, it’s dumb. No they’re not (likely) the best people on the planet to run Manchester United but they are clearly not at fault for the lack of enjoyment we currently feel with the team. And that is personally all I care about.

The manager is more at fault than any of these people. We hired the wrong man three times. That’s the only fault they (the board etc) have made.

And it is a very big fault. Which for some reasons goes under radar, while people complain for absurdities like we're not spending enough when we are spending more than any other club bar City.

 

[Minimalist]

And it is a very big fault. Which for some reasons goes under radar, while people complain for absurdities like we're not spending enough when we are spending more than any other club bar City.

No doubt and I have said I don’t care about Woodward losing his job on that basis but that’s the only thing I would fault them (as a unit) for.

Manager still needs to go regardless.

 

[Parry Gallister]

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.

Far as I gather, these are why people don't like the Glazers.

Leveraged debt, didn't invest when we were ahead (08-12 or so), widespread belief they're fine with us being a 'top four club', no modernisation/expansion of Old Trafford since they took over, idea that they have no real football knowledge yet haven't appointed anyone who does/don't let or trust their managers to have free reign over football matters, the competition for attention with their US teams etc.

 

[simonhch]

We don’t know what ED doesn’t or does know about football.
We don’t know what the Glazers have or have not green lit.
We do not know why Fergie wasn’t spending in the final years.
We do not know who Jose’s targets were.
We don’t know what Jose promised the board when he joined/re-signed contract.
We don’t know what the board told Jose when he signed.
We don’t know Jack about the inner workings of the club and most of what many are posting is speculation or conjecture.

There have been stories about the modernisation of the inner workings of the club since Moyes took over followed with LVG and Jose, supposedly been an ongoing process for years now, but again none of us know the truth.

This Ed knows nothing about football thing is really annoying tho, is there a university degree or something I was unaware of or are only people who have played the game at a high standard seen as knowing the game? Chelsea might want to sack Sarri based on that, Jose didn’t play at a high level either.

Sensible post.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

The dildo brothers over at West Ham come out every year when it's season ticket renewal time and tell the fans they'll spend big money on the right players and have almost always brought in dross.

Everyone in world football laughs at the idea of Madrid selling us Varane but some of our fans think this was possible. Woodward may as well offer 100m for Messi while he's at it and then tell everyone he tried. Ridiculous.

I think what’s more soul crushing is United fans that don’t understand what that comment was about. He’s not saying we were trying to sign Varane or that we were going to but if Varane became available and the cost was a 100 mil then that is a deal they could easily finance. He is making the point that if the right player becomes available then there is the money to do it. It vexes me that United fans can’t understand something so simple.

 

[Fujiland]

I wrote this in another thread couple of days ago, I put it here hopefully to help someone to understand that the problem is not the lack of spending.

Compare to many here I can't say I am a die hard united fan, but I did start watching united when their match was first broadcasted in China in early 90s and I have been following the team even after I moved to United States 20 something years ago. So let me offer some of my thoughts on the thinking of the ownership/management and current issues with United.

1. Closely following many American sport enterprises (Also worked in a professional club), I can safely say that all the owners will put making money ahead of winning in any given day, no exception. They can come out say how much they care about winning and how much they care about fans, but the hard truth is that they care money way more. The are ruthless and aggressive, that is why they are the owners and us here are not. but they are also excellent in decision making and they are arrogant and stubborn. I am laughing at people moaning about Glazers milking the club. nothing wrong with that. if they can maintain United brand without spending money, of course they will not spend. Look at Arsenal owner, same way if not worse.

But again, these guys are excellent business people, they will not hesitate spending if they see opportunities to improve the brand (likely by building a championship team). Glazers' other sport franchise, Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football team won Super Bowl on 2003. They did it by replacing a hall of fame coach in Tony Dungy with another good coach Jon Gruden. First, it was not a popular decision, lots of fans did not like it, and the players loved Dungy. Second, they paid heavy prices to get Gruden by trading one first round and one 2nd round draft picks to the Oakland team whom Gruden was working for. To many of you not familiar with draft picks, you can just imagine the price of picks is like trading away a peak Vidic (or even more significant) for a coach. They won the Super Bowl the next year, and that the last window they could have win because many of their top players (several ended up in Hall of fame) were getting old and in decline. I tell the story just to let people here to know that they are business people, they will spend if they think they need to spend. That brings to my 2nd point:

2. I have been satisfied if not surprised by the spending since SAF retired. I was quite surprised the owners backed LVG and Mourinho this much. Again, everything just number and money to them. So imagine that when Woodward went to them and the board asking significant more money than SAF would have asked. not even these guys, any business person would naturally question how you would justify the more spending and less chance of winning. You can tell them how terrible the team was and how the God figure SAF was, they would listen, they would agree that SAF was significant for the success in all those years, but they won't fully buy into a complete turn over of a team that just won the championship.

So I think Woodward did adequate if not excellent job in persuading these guys to open their pockets. He must have demonstrated with money numbers that either the brand value would drop or with the spending United would be winning not only premier league but also a chance to win CL. Now after hiring 2 supposedly best available managers (ignore Moyes) and spending $400 millions in overhaul rosters, no title in sight. Wouldn't you think Woodward's credibility with the owners or board dipped a little? If he were a general manager of an American sport team, he is on hot seat for sure if not gone already. People like Gary Neville argued that you should not let the house 3/4 built, but to these owners they thought with the money they have spent there should be 2 houses built already. now I offer some of my thoughts below:

3. I, like many others here, favors a DOF. With this much money involved these days, it is not logical not to restructure the organization. It is very very rare that any sports franchise in US not with a structure of CEO, GM, Manger/Coach. CEO oversees the overall operations, GM oversees transfer, scouting, draft with statistics and number crunching heavily adapted. Manager/Coach manages team selections and tactics. I think this model is going to be more and more adopted by teams here (Liverpool, Man city already for that matter). It is just too much money to rely on a single person to make decision. We don't have SAF anymore, so even with Mourinho moaning managers are like coaches, we should get a DOF. That is the start.

4. Prepare to part away with Mourinho. I believe the owners/board don't like him anyway. Almost all American owners would not want a coach that always in the spot light. Their ideal coach is Bill Belichick, who speaks little when winning, and speak less when losing. And of course, Belichick wins a lot too. I am certain that the owners would not like Mourinho's personality at the time of his hiring, but it can be tolerated if the team has been winning. Needless to say, with the team struggling, he still behaves like there is not a fight he does not like (players, reporters, pundits, probably staff too), it probably is too much for the owners. Again, too much money on the line for all the extracurricular activities. That is one big reason they won't back him as much as before.

The bigger issue is that he has not shown any capability to coach the team play consistently, to get the most out of players. I would not claim I am as good as many of you tactically, but the problem is glaring enough for any people to see. People may argue his past success. hack, I was on an U10 national team, but who cares. again, with this much money invested, the owners going to ask: what have you done for me lately? I am sure if you were the owner, you would ask the same question. people may also argue he inherited a poor team, I think it is just an excuse to begin with, many debates have done here already. But he had this many signings last 2 years and the team still plays this inconsistent? forget about style, if he wins, who cares. but unfortunately his style of football not only is not good for the eyeballs but also not going to win big. we here do not make decisions, but you think the owners/board trust him to think he is the guy to get us back to the top?

 

[LonelyFire]

I think what’s more soul crushing is United fans that don’t understand what that comment was about. He’s not saying we were trying to sign Varane or that we were going to but if Varane became available and the cost was a 100 mil then that is a deal they could easily finance. He is making the point that if the right player becomes available then there is the money to do it. It vexes me that United fans can’t understand something so simple.

Who is the judge of “the right player”? Pretty clear it was Woodward this summer which is a shocking state of affairs to be in.

Problem with the ownership model aside from the millions the leeches take out in management fees, interest etc. is footballing decisions being made by businessman looking at marketability as a viable quality for a potential signing. From an organisational standpoint, Utd are a fecking mess.

 

[JPRouve]

And it is a very big fault. Which for some reasons goes under radar, while people complain for absurdities like we're not spending enough when we are spending more than any other club bar City.

Exactly, we have a massive sign of incompetency that is actually proved by facts and people are making stuff up that aren't even close to be real.

 

[lewwoo]

Lets see how the next few years ago. I fear they have spent enough to ensure top 4 and now we have comfortably they are shutting the purse. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Minimalist]

4. Prepare to part away with Mourinho. I believe the owners/board don't like him anyway. Almost all American owners would not want a coach that always in the spot light. Their ideal coach is Bill Belichick, who speaks little when winning, and speak less when losing. And of course, Belichick wins a lot too. I am certain that the owners would not like Mourinho's personality at the time of his hiring, but it can be tolerated if the team has been winning. Needless to say, with the team struggling, he still behaves like there is not a fight he does not like (players, reporters, pundits, probably staff too), it probably is too much for the owners. Again, too much money on the line for all the extracurricular activities. That is one big reason they won't back him as much as before.

Makes sense and frankly I don't know why we all wouldn't prefer that.

 

[MoskvaRed]

There are Glazer era 1 complaints (post-LBO to 2013) and Glazer era 2 complaints (post-Fergie). The first is now a largely academic argument of what might have been so, addressing the second in one sentence - since they lost one of the greatest managers of all time, Ed/the Glazers have given no indication they know how to translate United’s huge advantages of scale, prestige and wealth into a successful football team.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

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.

Like you say- we're in a valley of shit right now.
If you 'don't follow' it's because you're not looking at the bigger picture.

Jose may be part of the problem. But getting rid of him will not be our solution.

We've been mismanaged from the top on the footballing side ever since the Glazers took over. Fergie papered over the cracks but when he left we saw the incompetent ownership we are dealing with.

 

[Rash Decision]

Sorry but you are wrong and VP is correct. Woodward brokered the deal that got the Glazers the money to buy Man Utd when he worked for JP Morgan and became our CEO. The purpose of a CEO is to make as much money as possible for the owners and sharesholders. Woodward has stated during a conference call with major shareholders that ‘Performances on the on the pitch will have no impact on the revenue stream of the club’. Why is this possible? Because we have hundreds of millions of registered fans, we have Pogba who is, apparently, the third most marketable sportsman on the planet after some American footballer and AJ, the Superstore etc etc. We could be relegated and the money would still pour in. The clubs value is in excess of £3,000,000,000. Therefore, Woodward is doing a good job for the Glazers.

The football side is the responsibility of Jose and the players. He will argue that he hasn’t got the tools for the job even though he bough most of them. He has also lost his right hand man and is in a war with United’s most valuable asset if you believe the media.

Guardiola on the other hand has no issues. He gets as much money as he wants, the club are under no pressure to be run as a business and players flock to them for an easy life on big, big money. How much do the bench sitters earn at the Emptyhad? That is what is winding Jose up. He’s seen Klopp spend big and even West Ham have splashed the cash but not Utd. We spent comparatively little compared to previous years.

You make sound arguments and I will not dispute them because I don't necessarily disagree. However, reasoned though your conclusions might be, they are still your assessments of the situation looking in from the outside. My only contention was VP presenting those conclusions as facts and then saying he/she couldn't believe anyone would condone such a situation. I think it's perfectly understandable that some might not draw the same conclusions as you two. As an example, I could make a case that Jose's doing an awful job coaching his team and say I can't believe anyone still supports him. Not everyone will see it that way and that's perfectly normal.

In any case, it wasn't an argument worth having tbh

 

[JPRouve]

Who is the judge of “the right player”? Pretty clear it was Woodward this summer which is a shocking state of affairs to be in.

Problem with the ownership model aside from the millions the leeches take out in management fees, interest etc. is footballing decisions being made by businessman looking at marketability as a viable quality for a potential signing. From an organisational standpoint, Utd are a fecking mess.

Scouts, it's literally scouts. Managers may choose the final targets, but scouts are the ones making list of right players.

 

[Revan]

I wrote this in another thread couple of days ago, I put it here hopefully to help someone to understand that the problem is not the lack of spending.

Compare to many here I can't say I am a die hard united fan, but I did start watching united when their match was first broadcasted in China in early 90s and I have been following the team even after I moved to United States 20 something years ago. So let me offer some of my thoughts on the thinking of the ownership/management and current issues with United.

1. Closely following many American sport enterprises (Also worked in a professional club), I can safely say that all the owners will put making money ahead of winning in any given day, no exception. They can come out say how much they care about winning and how much they care about fans, but the hard truth is that they care money way more. The are ruthless and aggressive, that is why they are the owners and us here are not. but they are also excellent in decision making and they are arrogant and stubborn. I am laughing at people moaning about Glazers milking the club. nothing wrong with that. if they can maintain United brand without spending money, of course they will not spend. Look at Arsenal owner, same way if not worse.

But again, these guys are excellent business people, they will not hesitate spending if they see opportunities to improve the brand (likely by building a championship team). Glazers' other sport franchise, Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football team won Super Bowl on 2003. They did it by replacing a hall of fame coach in Tony Dungy with another good coach Jon Gruden. First, it was not a popular decision, lots of fans did not like it, and the players loved Dungy. Second, they paid heavy prices to get Gruden by trading one first round and one 2nd round draft picks to the Oakland team whom Gruden was working for. To many of you not familiar with draft picks, you can just imagine the price of picks is like trading away a peak Vidic (or even more significant) for a coach. They won the Super Bowl the next year, and that the last window they could have win because many of their top players (several ended up in Hall of fame) were getting old and in decline. I tell the story just to let people here to know that they are business people, they will spend if they think they need to spend. That brings to my 2nd point:

2. I have been satisfied if not surprised by the spending since SAF retired. I was quite surprised the owners backed LVG and Mourinho this much. Again, everything just number and money to them. So imagine that when Woodward went to them and the board asking significant more money than SAF would have asked. not even these guys, any business person would naturally question how you would justify the more spending and less chance of winning. You can tell them how terrible the team was and how the God figure SAF was, they would listen, they would agree that SAF was significant for the success in all those years, but they won't fully buy into a complete turn over of a team that just won the championship.

So I think Woodward did adequate if not excellent job in persuading these guys to open their pockets. He must have demonstrated with money numbers that either the brand value would drop or with the spending United would be winning not only premier league but also a chance to win CL. Now after hiring 2 supposedly best available managers (ignore Moyes) and spending $400 millions in overhaul rosters, no title in sight. Wouldn't you think Woodward's credibility with the owners or board dipped a little? If he were a general manager of an American sport team, he is on hot seat for sure if not gone already. People like Gary Neville argued that you should not let the house 3/4 built, but to these owners they thought with the money they have spent there should be 2 houses built already. now I offer some of my thoughts below:

3. I, like many others here, favors a DOF. With this much money involved these days, it is not logical not to restructure the organization. It is very very rare that any sports franchise in US not with a structure of CEO, GM, Manger/Coach. CEO oversees the overall operations, GM oversees transfer, scouting, draft with statistics and number crunching heavily adapted. Manager/Coach manages team selections and tactics. I think this model is going to be more and more adopted by teams here (Liverpool, Man city already for that matter). It is just too much money to rely on a single person to make decision. We don't have SAF anymore, so even with Mourinho moaning managers are like coaches, we should get a DOF. That is the start.

4. Prepare to part away with Mourinho. I believe the owners/board don't like him anyway. Almost all American owners would not want a coach that always in the spot light. Their ideal coach is Bill Belichick, who speaks little when winning, and speak less when losing. And of course, Belichick wins a lot too. I am certain that the owners would not like Mourinho's personality at the time of his hiring, but it can be tolerated if the team has been winning. Needless to say, with the team struggling, he still behaves like there is not a fight he does not like (players, reporters, pundits, probably staff too), it probably is too much for the owners. Again, too much money on the line for all the extracurricular activities. That is one big reason they won't back him as much as before.

The bigger issue is that he has not shown any capability to coach the team play consistently, to get the most out of players. I would not claim I am as good as many of you tactically, but the problem is glaring enough for any people to see. People may argue his past success. hack, I was on an U10 national team, but who cares. again, with this much money invested, the owners going to ask: what have you done for me lately? I am sure if you were the owner, you would ask the same question. people may also argue he inherited a poor team, I think it is just an excuse to begin with, many debates have done here already. But he had this many signings last 2 years and the team still plays this inconsistent? forget about style, if he wins, who cares. but unfortunately his style of football not only is not good for the eyeballs but also not going to win big. we here do not make decisions, but you think the owners/board trust him to think he is the guy to get us back to the top?

Excellent post, and finally found a detailed post I fully agree with.

 

[VP]

Maybe because these are your opinions and not facts.

Why do you think the Glazers bought united? For the love of the club and the game?

 

[Rash Decision]

Why do you think the Glazers bought united? For the love of the club and the game?

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions. My contention was with you putting them forward as facts and then saying you can't believe anyone would support them. I think it's perfectly normal if some people have different takes on the situation.