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

[Fluctuation0161]

Why the negativity against Ed?
He is a business man telling our football manager who he should or shouldn't be signing. He is fantastic at his own job and should stick to it, and bring in a proper football man to oversee the DoF type role.

Why the negativity against the Glazers?
They are absolute parasites who have never spent a penny of their own money yet own the club and take millions of pounds out of it every year. They don't give a toss about the club as long as it is lining their pockets, the way they took over the club and placed their debt onto the club itself should be against the law. There is literally nothing positive to say about them.

These are really not difficult questions.

Well said.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

They only spent when we finished outside top 4 - even that was after years of under investment. Back in top 4 this season and all of a sudden the club didn’t agree with the targets the manager had - Ed even chucked in a line to his briefing about the poor exchange rate. They also continue to take millions out of the club every year just for the pleasure of having them own us, never mind the interest payments on loans they took out to buy our club.

Make no mistake, the Glazers are only interested in the financial fruits obtained from CL and associated TV revenue. They will “sanction” spending to stay in that top 4 but they are not interested in chasing the title simply because the net gain isn’t worth the expenditure it would take to win.

The amount of fans who have forgotten who the real problem is here is astounding.

It’s are reaping what they sowed - it was Utd who were one of the first clubs to list in the stock exchange - we made the club into a business.

A leveraged buyout is perfectly normal - and of course paying interest on those loans, and paying dividends is expected and normal practice. This is a business, not la la land.

Problem is fans who don’t understand that the club is not going to get some rich suger daddy to come along and spend £3-4bn in CASH to buy the club and then continue to spend hundreds of millions of his/ her own money to finance transfers. This is not a reality, it’s a fairytale.

In respect of the owners that we have got - it could be a hell of a lot worse.

 

[SER19]

The OP explained the point quite well in my view, all valid points.

Yes in the world of championship manager or from a ridiculously simple viewpoint they are.

 

[POF]

Good post but I do want come back with a few arguments.

It’s not a case of the Glazers ‘bleeding the club dry’. They have caused the club to be in huge debt with considerable interest rates charged each year. And now they are taking 20m of dividends each year as well. That is at a bare minimum £40m going out of the club each year that shouldn’t be. And they have got very lucky that interest rates have been so low for so long.

I don’t buy the fact they have created this commercial monster. It already was and that’s why they bought the club. Maybe they have gone to the extreme with the amount of sponsorship but it’s no different to any other club these days, it’s just the United brand has more value. And no matter what Woodward spouts in his AGMs the brand was built only by success on the pitch. Fan bases are built by football success.

The Glazers are only interested in top 4. They want the Champions League money and that’s all they care about. The Adidas deals get affected by lack of qualification. Moyes got sacked the same weekend we mathematically couldn’t qualify for the Champions League. It’s a minimum requirement by the club, yes. But the investment in the squad to go from top 4 to league winners doesn’t make business sense to them. We have seen a pattern of huge investment when we have missed top 4 only for that to reduce once we have got it.

As for Maguire. We don’t know for certain who decided on out targets but my issue would be why has it taken a World Cup for him to be noticed by our manager or scouts? Surely they should have already known if they wanted him before. It’s not like he plays in the Latvian league.

What's wrong with them taking £20m in dividends? They hold the significant majority shareholding in the club. They own it and hold all of the financial risk. They should take the financial benefits too. Based on the huge levels of spending over the last 4 or 5 years, it has had very little impact on United's ability to compete in the market.

Champions League money is barely significant anymore, especially considering the fortunes the Premier League TV deal brings in. You have teams like Everton and Leicester outspending teams that are Champions League regulars by a long way.

It is incredibly naive to suggest that a prolonged period without success won't significantly reduce the value of the club. Yet fans seem to think the Glazers don't care. Would you care if the value of your house halved over the next 5 years?

I completely agree with the last bolded part. Signing Maguire after the world cup would have been throwing money away. Refusing to sanction that deal is completely understandable in my opinion. But, being in a position where Maguire was one of the only remaining options shows incredibly poor planning.

I think the criticism of the Glazers and Woodward from the perspective of "taking money out of the club" or suggesting they don't care about success on the pitch is ridiculous. They do deserve criticism for the poor structures they have in place which ironically have cost them a small fortune due to the shambolic recruitment processes.

 

[Member 5225]

So what I don’t get is, did Jose only want 29/30 year olds and was told by the club to invest in more youthful longer-term players and Jose threw his toys out of his pram?

Was Ed waiting for better targets as per above and didn’t get them, did Jose remain stubborn? There must be so much more behind the scenes.

 

[Un4givableB]

Every aspect of the club has stagnated under the Glazers watch. The stadium hasn't been develop any further at all. The youth set-up has fallen behind. And most damningly of all they have singularly failed to manage the transition to the post-Ferguson era. Their failure in transition management is the killer for me, they knew they had to plan for a future after SAF, there simply was no plan that obvious now. Thats what I'm most angry about.

They've managed cashflow very well. They've managed liquidation of their own assests extremely well. Yes they've spent on transfers but ineffectively and without any sense of a real plan, purpose or vision for the club. This is Manchester United, the biggest club in England, and its being run with no real sense of direction, its crazy stuff. Its about time the fans started to turn on these leeches.

100% Right.

Utd are a 'All fur coat and no knickers' club under the Glazers.

 

[jesperjaap]

I think there are good reasons to not be happy with many things at the club

The Glazers bought our club by putting it into considerable debt not using there own money but take money out every year. All the risk they are doin gisnt even with there own money. RIghtly or wrongly it at least appears they want commercial success driven by us reaching the top four each year rather than trophies.

Woodward appears to embody this, being so good commercially as a brand but doesnt come across as carign about the club as say David Gill would. Again it at least appears as if he is interested in us getting players with commercial appeal rather than backing managers ideas.

Of course not all the blame can be laid at there door as all the managers have still been backed financially, certainly in there first season or two and not one manager has so far hsa failed to crumble under the pressure in terms of appearing happy in the role and confident, not one manager in my opinion has either cleared out the dead wood as they need to, bought in players really well and most importantly not one manager has got us to play football that is entertaining which is of course very important to most fans of the club. Just the fact that the players some five years later from the worst manager in possibly our worst window still remain at the club and are still regular starters is damning to me.

When Ferguson took the realm he cleared out deadwood and also star players he thought had the wrong attitude, bought in young exciting players, developed an exciting brand of football and restructured things from the top to the bottom.

Crazy that just five years later what we really need is somebody to come in and do similar even though we are a much different animal than we were then. The problem is, it took him several years to do that.....you wouldnt get the time he had in this day and age, with the board and Woodward you wonder if anybody would even be allowed this much control and backing for major change from the board and Woodward.....which is all reason enough to be unhappy with them

 

[vidic blood & sand]

How many more managers will we go through before the OP cottons on, you reckon?

I'm going for 2-3 more.

Baffles me.

The club has been on the decline for 10 years under these owners and was accelerated further when Gill was replaced by Woodward and Fergie left who had major control on the club.

And the decline shows no sign of stopping.

The club was in decline in 1969, and showed no sign of stopping in 1989.

 

[Jcrossley94]

So what I don’t get is, did Jose only want 29/30 year olds and was told by the club to invest in more youthful longer-term players and Jose threw his toys out of his pram?

Was Ed waiting for better targets as per above and didn’t get them, did Jose remain stubborn? There must be so much more behind the scenes.

That doesn’t quite fly with the facts, based on Maguire being 25

 

[vidic blood & sand]

The Glazers aren't too bothered about how Manchester United do in a footballing capacity, for them it's a licence to print money. They syphon money off the club (after riddling with debt first) every year to pay for their other failing ventures, such as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or their shopping malls that have consistently closed down. Bottom line is, they need United to stay rich, they were staring at bankruptcy until the takeover happened. They don't care if we don't win the PL ever again as long as some blokes in China buy official merchandise. They're happy to turn us into the McDonalds or Coke-Cola of the sporting world.

Manchester United are an investment, like any other club. It is the day an age we live in. If there is money to be made in professional sport, people will do it.

Ed Woodward is their man, someone they appointed to do what he does best, and that's increase the commercial profile of the club. His goals are to get United's name on everything and anything as long as it pays enough. Again, does he care more than the Glazers about United winning the league or being competitive? Probably, but only because it makes his job easier if we're winning stuff, and even if we're not, he just points at Twitter and Instagram followers when a new sponsor comes along.

So you think there are other owners out there who are disgusted at the thought of making money from a £3 bil investment?

Now these are the people in charge of making the major decisions at our club, and these are people with non footballing interests at heart.

And have made funds available to managers and given them control over football related decisions. Ferguson has nothing bad to say about the Glazers.

To swap out a manager for another manager when you've got this lot running things is only going to lead to more of the same. Until we address the fundamental issues at our club we'll never compete for the league again, unless we unearth a truly exceptional manager ala Fergie.

There are no serious issues that I see, except the team is not performing.

We need to hire a DoF with a long term plan for the club, who know's what United are about and the Glazers/Woodward have to back the manager 100%, and if the manager says our CB's aren't good enough, buy Harry Maguire, then that's what they fecking do. Regardless of the players marketability or their assessment of the players ability.

Spend £75M on a player who had a decent world cup because Mourinho wants him? And add to a growing stock pile of other defenders who haven't worked out?

 

[Smores]

So what I don’t get is, did Jose only want 29/30 year olds and was told by the club to invest in more youthful longer-term players and Jose threw his toys out of his pram?

Was Ed waiting for better targets as per above and didn’t get them, did Jose remain stubborn? There must be so much more behind the scenes.

Did Ribalta leave because Ed said all his targets were shit and not Varane? Did Ribalta know we weren't investing?

Tune in next time for more rumours phrased as questions

 

[Greck]

Not particularly fond of the glazers/Woodward but find the criticisms levied against them are exaggerated. Their aggressive commercialisation of the club improved our revenue streams. We could be in worse hands financially. Also don't know if people actually expect them to not renumerate themselves. In an ideal world I would make them pay the debt they put on the club with their own dividends but that's not how it works. They make the club money and contrary to what the Jose fanboy defence force claims they also spend money. The managers just waste it.

Still, hope they employ more footballing minds in the hierarchy. LVG was right when he criticised the club on that bit. His tenure could have gone smoother if he had a technical director or DoF to help with recruitment. Recent briefings at least show a willingness to address this. Giving Jose a contract extension was also a massive rookie move and letting all the good managerial choices go to rival clubs is also frustrating

 

[Josep Dowling]

What's wrong with them taking £20m in dividends? They hold the significant majority shareholding in the club. They own it and hold all of the financial risk. They should take the financial benefits too. Based on the huge levels of spending over the last 4 or 5 years, it has had very little impact on United's ability to compete in the market.

Champions League money is barely significant anymore, especially considering the fortunes the Premier League TV deal brings in. You have teams like Everton and Leicester outspending teams that are Champions League regulars by a long way.

It is incredibly naive to suggest that a prolonged period without success won't significantly reduce the value of the club. Yet fans seem to think the Glazers don't care. Would you care if the value of your house halved over the next 5 years?

I completely agree with the last bolded part. Signing Maguire after the world cup would have been throwing money away. Refusing to sanction that deal is completely understandable in my opinion. But, being in a position where Maguire was one of the only remaining options shows incredibly poor planning.

I think the criticism of the Glazers and Woodward from the perspective of "taking money out of the club" or suggesting they don't care about success on the pitch is ridiculous. They do deserve criticism for the poor structures they have in place which ironically have cost them a small fortune due to the shambolic recruitment processes.

The Glazers have no financial risk. United is a limited company. If the club went under the Glazers personally have no liability, that’s why it’s set up as a company. They purchased a club with an offer the previous shareholders couldn’t refuse. Then borrowed money secured that was secured against the assets of the club, at what point have they taken a personal financial risk?

Ed Woodward has been quoted as saying their commercial success has nothing to do with success on the football pitch. That shows you where his priorities are and precisely why we need someone who’s only focus is on the football and recruitment. Maybe we wouldn’t be trying to sign players off the back of an 7 game tournament.

 

[JPRouve]

Did Ribalta leave because Ed said all his targets were shit and not Varane? Did Ribalta know we weren't investing?

Tune in next time for more rumours phrased as questions

One thing about Ribalta, he wasn't the Chief scout, that's Jim Lawlor. Ribalta had a nebulous role has the responsible for up and coming players targetting or something like that.

 

[Shaun Oldman]

"Their" this "their" that and "their" the other...

The Glazers bought us with 50p and made the club pay for itself, some of you need to remember that when lauding them.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

A working plan can be realizing that we needed better quality at left-back, right-wing & CB to play the kind of football we last season tried to, going out identifying good targets for those positions and getting them.

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.

As for alternatives, in recent times these have moved (or have been said to be available):
LB: Mendy. (Sandro, Gaya, Tierney, Telles & Robertson, (with Rose being another option if we go away from hindsight)
CB: Laporte, Van Dijk & Bonucci (Alderweireld)
RB: Mahrez, Dembele, Costa & Silva (Pulisic)

How many of these players did Mourniho specifically request?

And that's looking only at the ones who have moved or been rumored to move.
We've signed some good player, so it's not all doom and gloom, Matic, Pogba, Fred, Lukaku, Bailly, Lindelöf, Martial, Mkhitaryan & Sanchez might not all have worked out but were all signed to work in areas we were weak in. (except for Sanchez assuming now that he wasn't signed to be on the right)

I have been happy enough with our progress up until this window where I think we bought way too little and only on 1 semi-problem area as well as a rotation-alternative.
I expected us to at the very least on top of what we got sign one, preferably two more of the 3 problem-areas we have left, because in not too long we'll have to replace Matic in the first eleven, and we won't know if Pereira or McTominay will take the step to the quality needed to be a first choice player, and I'm now assuming that Dalot will naturally take over from Valencia.

Ok

That's just the last few years though, as for a plan under Woodward, there seems to have been none:
When he came into the position he said we can do what nobody else can do in the market. I'll excuse giving Moyes the job as it wasn't at least fully down to him.
LvG however was a disaster in every possible way, that same year Allegri moved to Juventus, Conte went to Chelsea, Pochettino went to Spurs, and a year after Klopp moved to Liverpool, Ancelotti went to Bayern. At the same time Emery certainly was available. Simeone might've been a stretch, but can't say it would have been impossible either.

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.

Playing-styles we went to and from:
We went from Moyes who wanted to get it out to the wings to the theme of Benny Hill ran people crazy, again not something I put down to Woodward, but from him to LvG who was so scared of his own shadow that he wanted desperately to keep the ball at all times and not do anything that could get us a goal (we scored 49 goals during his last season) to Mourinho who has done a ok job at getting us higher up the table with results, but bores half our fanbase to death with reactive football instead of football that aims to entertain (mind, I'm not one of those who want Mourinho gone, but tons of our fanbase do want him gone because the style bores them). We're all over the place, whether it's manager type or signings we've made pre-Mourinho. There is no certain plan to how we've wanted to make the team progress since Fergie called it quits. "Get in a renowned manager and give him some cash, if he doesn't do it for us then we'll fire him and hire another renowned manager and give him some cash" seems to be our plan, and it's certainly not one that will help us in the long-term, especially not if we are going to argue with the manager over a potential signings quality just because one of his earlier signings didn't live up to standards wanted.

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.

For comparison in that aspect, Liverpool signed Karius during Klopps time, they didn't tell him no when he wanted to upgrade him with Alisson.
Same goes for when they signed Van Dijk after already having signed Klavan & Matip. No one is telling him he can't buy Keita or Fabinho because he purchased Grujic, Chamberlain or Wijnaldum.

City didn't stop backing Guardiola because Hart was replaced by the failure Bravo, and then wanted to replace him again with Ederson, and they certainly didn't stop signing player after player for ~30-50 million in positions he already had good players (Mendy, Walker, Danilo, Mahrez, Stones, Silva, Jesus, Gundogan etc).

Woodward & the board giving Mourinho a new contract just to half a year later not support him in the transfer-market isn't good planning. Back him or fire him. If they want a change of style then I'm sure a lot of people would understand that, but from Moyes to Van Gaal to Mourinho and then telling Mourinho that they decide the need of the squad suggests that style matters zip, zero & zilch and they are really only interested in minimising investment to stay as profitable as possible.

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

 

[OldSchoolManc]

Why the negativity against Ed?
He is a business man telling our football manager who he should or shouldn't be signing. He is fantastic at his own job and should stick to it, and bring in a proper football man to oversee the DoF type role.

Why the negativity against the Glazers?
They are absolute parasites who have never spent a penny of their own money yet own the club and take millions of pounds out of it every year. They don't give a toss about the club as long as it is lining their pockets, the way they took over the club and placed their debt onto the club itself should be against the law. There is literally nothing positive to say about them.

These are really not difficult questions.

Great post.
If FFP was worth it’s salt, it would’ve been onto the Glazers immediately. THEY are the type of owners that ruin football clubs. Leeching off the profits to pay themselves and service the debt that they themselves put on the club.
The premier league fit and proper ownership tests are an absolute joke if you go through the owners that have been approved to buy clubs.
Can you imagine the transfer funds that would be available if we weren’t paying massive amounts to the Glazers, shareholders and debt interest?

 

[JPRouve]

Great post.
If FFP was worth it’s salt, it would’ve been onto the Glazers immediately. THEY are the type of owners that ruin football clubs. Leeching off the profits to pay themselves and service the debt that they themselves put on the club.
The premier league fit and proper ownership tests are an absolute joke if you go through the owners that have been approved to buy clubs.
Can you imagine the transfer funds that would be available if we weren’t paying massive amounts to the Glazers, shareholders and debt interest?

Yeah about 20m£, assuming that the administrators of the club have similar commercial acumen and somehow do it for free.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

@vidic blood & sand do me a favour and look how the club was purchased by them and what they have taken out. Then look at how they constructed a payment plan to pay off the debt they brought. Not only was it on to illegal but the underinvestment has been disgraceful since they arrived. Only this week figures have came out with the club valued at 4 billion. The Glazer's have taken 100's of million out of United and are cashing in on the brand created long before they got here. The reason it's been glossed over is because Fergie done an incredible job while they were here, on very limited investment each summer. The lack of direction and investment they have made is astonishing. Clueless business men with one goal, just bump the brand with names to make money. No infrastructure or long term planning in place, never mind football people making the final decision on transfers. I'm not sure if it was ignorance or trying to provoke a reaction by creating this thread? Using word's like generous to describe them is astonishing.
Love United, Hate Glazer!

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?

 

[vidic blood & sand]

City set the whole club up with the intention of bringing in Guardiola. It was a long term plan and it seems to be working out pretty well for them.

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

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Age notwithstanding, Alderweireld is hugely talented and would’ve been massive upgrade, much like VVD has been for Liverpool.

I don't think so. The amount of money it would have cost to buy him from Tottenham, the benefits would have been marginal at best. Tottenham may have simply refused to sell as well.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

It basically boils down to there being no sign of ambition from them to challenge City. Its like we've just given up.

It's not just about spending a fortune on players to improve the current team either. We are neither doing that or buying young players to challenge in the future, or looking like building a structure to do so.

Lukaku, Pogba, Sanchez, Bailly, Fred, Lindelof does not sound like a club giving up. We've also done well to hold on to de Gea. The fact is, the quality of football is dull, and there is no consistency from what is regarded as a very good squad.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

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.

Is Mourinho to blame with some of his transfers?

Can you imagine any manager saying to the board, some of these £30M £40M people we've bought, don't seem to be very good. We'll need to replace them with better ones please.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

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.

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.

 

[Revan]

"Their" this "their" that and "their" the other...

The Glazers bought us with 50p and made the club pay for itself, some of you need to remember that when lauding them.

When the debt was restructured a large amount of money came from PIK payments, so 50p is totally wrong. They payed at least 220m pounds from their money to buy the club. Of course, the distinction between their money and club's money is purely academic, considering that they own both.

 

[JPRouve]

When the debt was restructured a large amount of money came from PIK payments, so 50p is totally wrong. They payed at least 220m pounds from their money to buy the club. Of course, the distinction between their money and club's money is purely academic, considering that they own both.

And who buys a business and do not make that business pay for itself and remunerates you? That would defy the idea of purchasing it in the first place.

 

[Rory 7]

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

What do you think the Glazers plan currently is as a matter of interest?

 

[JPRouve]

What do you think the Glazers plan currently is as a matter of interest?

Durably increase turnovers.

 

[Rory 7]

Durably increase turnovers.

Exponentially or do they see a cap? I agree. That is their likely plan for the business. What do you think their plan for the football club is?

 

[Revan]

And who buys a business and do not make that business pay for itself and remunerates you? That would defy the idea of purchasing it in the first place.

Yes. But I think that the way how they bought the club should have been illegal in the first place. They took a debt to buy the club and then put the debt in the club.

Of course, even if it was illegal, not sure how much it would have changed. They could have taken an another debt after they bought the club to pay the first debt. Or give higher dividends. Or... I dunno, there are probably other creative solutions. Regardless from the moral point of view, what they did was evil. At the same time, United would have not been near as a big commercial juggernaut as it is with the previous PLC and their 2 people working at commercial department and the 'Nike and Vodafone and we're fine' idiotic policy, nor with the total inflexibility on the wages, nor with not backing of Fergie (Fergie and Kenyon went public against each other, something that never happened under Glazers). Add to that the high risk that Fergie was going to be sacked (the two main shareholders hated him after he sued them) and I have no doubt that both on short term and long term we would have been significantly weaker if it wasn't for Glazers.

Of course, ideally it should have been some owner who bought the club with his own money, and did as a good job on running it as Glazers did. It might have happened back then. Now, probably not because the club is so big. But then, now we don't need to replace Glazers.

 

[MadMike]

Is Mourinho to blame with some of his transfers?

Can you imagine any manager saying to the board, some of these £30M £40M people we've bought, don't seem to be very good. We'll need to replace them with better ones please.

No, cause I don't have to imagine it. I have seen it happen. Pep signed Bravo, then benched him midway through the year and bought Ederson the next summer.

 

[Rory 7]

The silence when asked to describe the Glazers plan for the club, from posters defending the owners, is quite telling...

 

[Leftback99]

Lukaku, Pogba, Sanchez, Bailly, Fred, Lindelof does not sound like a club giving up. We've also done well to hold on to de Gea. The fact is, the quality of football is dull, and there is no consistency from what is regarded as a very good squad.

Not sure Bailly Fred and Lindelof really count, if someone like Everton signed them no one would think they'd challenge. On the others it's just the bare minimum to stand still, take Lukaku, Pogba and Sanchez out of our first XI and it's mid table quality.

 

[JPRouve]

Exponentially or do they see a cap? I agree. That is their likely plan for the business. What do you think their plan for the football club is?

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.

 

[Greck]

The silence when asked to describe the Glazers plan for the club, from posters defending the owners, is quite telling...

How is anyone on an Internet forum supposed to know their corporate plan? Even the guys saying they just want to make top 4 and profit are also just throwing shit at the wall

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

The Glazers have no financial risk. United is a limited company. If the club went under the Glazers personally have no liability, that’s why it’s set up as a company. They purchased a club with an offer the previous shareholders couldn’t refuse. Then borrowed money secured that was secured against the assets of the club, at what point have they taken a personal financial risk?.

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.

Need to understand fans are no longer in control of their football clubs, owners are not supporters and they are there to maximise revenue.

The silence when asked to describe the Glazers plan for the club, from posters defending the owners, is quite telling...

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

 

[Rory 7]

How is anyone on an Internet forum supposed to know their corporate plan? Even the guys saying they just want to make top 4 and profit are also just throwing shit at the wall

I said plan for the club

 

[POF]

The Glazers have no financial risk. United is a limited company. If the club went under the Glazers personally have no liability, that’s why it’s set up as a company. They purchased a club with an offer the previous shareholders couldn’t refuse. Then borrowed money secured that was secured against the assets of the club, at what point have they taken a personal financial risk?

Ed Woodward has been quoted as saying their commercial success has nothing to do with success on the football pitch. That shows you where his priorities are and precisely why we need someone who’s only focus is on the football and recruitment. Maybe we wouldn’t be trying to sign players off the back of an 7 game tournament.

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.

 

[Revan]

The silence when asked to describe the Glazers plan for the club, from posters defending the owners, is quite telling...

Defending the owners as in providing facts instead of clichés like 'they are a cancer to the club', 'they are the worst thing to have ever happened to Man United', 'everything we have won or will win is despite them' or lies like 'they didn't spend a penny to buy the club', 'they have taken more than 1b from the club' or speculation based on nothing like 'commercial wise we would have been as good without them'?

Plans for football club? I don't work for them so I don't know. My best guess would be to do as good as possible on the pitch, because that in short term increases the revenue (more price money, better commercial deals), and long term increases the value of the club. The value of the club is all they care about, considering that at the moment they own 2.5b pounds on it, and there is a lot of potential for this to increase. They are multi-billionaires because of United, if United value decreases, so does theirs, so United doing as good as possible on and off the pitch (which in my opinion are highly related) is on their best interest and of utter importance.

Are they able to do things well football wise? I think that they struck gold on Fergie, but since he left, I have not seen a plan that they know exactly what they have been doing, and I am totally unhappy on how the club has been run. There hasn't been anything resembling a long term strategy.

 

[Greck]

I said plan for the club

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. Even you cant know the answer to your question