National Forum

Non-Gaa Forum

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To Gleebo:  "How would you remove the Glazers, though? There have been protests against them since they took over in 2005, some of which were even violent. They have sailed serenely on as the club has been driven into the ground, and as the largest shareholders, they have the law on their side.

Personally, I think that leveraged buyouts should be illegal, for the simple reason that someone buying an asset should have the funds necessary to purchase said asset in its entirety, rather than purchasing a percentage and using the club's assets to load debt on to it. But that's moot.

In Manchester United's case, the debt remains at much the same level it was back in 2005, despite nigh-on twenty years of it being a highly-profitable concern. The majority stakeholders have paid themselves around a billion sterling in profits, while the team has gone into freefall and the stadium has started to leak water and rust.

The only thing that might persuade the owners to sell up is if the team gets relegated and the fans boycott the games, sponsors and merch, forcing the share price to tank. IMO that is unlikely given how sheep-like many people are.

But even then, there would be a very real threat to United's viability, as the debt will remain the same but the TV money will be grossly reduced.

So no easy way to get rid of them as far as I can tell."
The Glazers have spent more on players than any other team in their time there so I don't know what the fans are moaning about…? It's also worth remembering that they wouldn't be there at all if it wasn't for the greed of whiskey nose Ferguson and his run in with the previous majority share holders Magnier/McManus that led to them selling up … And Ferguson is still hanging around the place like a bad smell pocketing a huge salary each week…. That's where the finger of blame should be pointed…!!

ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 1032 - 15/08/2022 13:03:41    2437497

Link

Replying To ForeverBlue2:  "The Glazers have spent more on players than any other team in their time there so I don't know what the fans are moaning about…? It's also worth remembering that they wouldn't be there at all if it wasn't for the greed of whiskey nose Ferguson and his run in with the previous majority share holders Magnier/McManus that led to them selling up … And Ferguson is still hanging around the place like a bad smell pocketing a huge salary each week…. That's where the finger of blame should be pointed…!!"
As Gary Neville pointed out on Saturday, the Glaziers haven't spent a penny of their own money on transfers.

It's either borrowed money or money the club itself generates.

Good business sense? Certainly to the point of lining their own pockets.

Good for the club? Absolutely not.

People give out about Abramovic, Monseur, the Saudi Group. .
But these guys are investing into their respective clubs (obviously Abramovic no longer is).

The Glaziers have essentially bled United dry. Or are well on the road to doing so. United being the mammoth club it is has simply taken longer to fall than say Sunderland, Derby, Portsmouth, Leeds, Blackburn etc etc.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 4702 - 15/08/2022 13:31:42    2437502

Link

Replying To Saynothing:  "The old man with the big red nose still has too much to say. When he stepped down as manager he should have been out the door. Look on the bright side , they have Harry Maguire."
Whilst Fergie was/is an absolute legend at United and always will be, your correct to say some of the problems started there imo. It's almost the exact same situation to previous manager leaving after huge success. These legends have/had such a huge presence around a club, by just remaining involved it can unintentionally undermine the regime coming after them.

Football clubs had already moved onto different models, Fergie was the manager, sporting director, had a huge influence on the chief executive, was chief scout etc etc. He was the best manager of all time imo but nobody else can do all the roles he did, and I suspect with him still being there, offering advice there is a reluctance to transform the off field footballing department.

City have spent money, but Pep is a head coach, similar at Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham and now Arsenal with the right football department behind them managing, scouting, recruitment and everything else. United look to be a mess behind the scenes, but the new Head coach looks like he won't stand back and will call it out for what it is. He requires at least three years to make some progress, it wouldn't surprise me to see Van dar Sar being brought in from Ajax to work behind the scenes at some stage.

As for the owners, I doubt they're going anywhere, best United fans can hope for is, they stand back and allow football people to run that side of the business and stop signing players for commerical reasons, and genuinely go after players an organised department recommend.

sam1884 (UK) - Posts: 957 - 15/08/2022 21:52:26    2437586

Link

I've been following Manchester United for 41 years.

Cavanman47 is spot on with his assessment. People say the Glazers have spent money. They haven't spent their own money. What they've done is the equivalent of borrowing to fix the roof when the foundations are giving way. They have bled the club dry over a seventeen year period and as cavanman47 pointed out, because of United's size the fall has taken longer to materialise than say Leeds.

I wouldn't hold Ferguson culpable but his row with McManus & Magnier led to the Glazer purchase. You can't control who buys the club in a capitalist environment but leveraged buy outs of a sports club are very dangerous.

Manchester City's owners are a stark contrast to the Glazers. Not only did City's owners invest in the players and Manager but also every single area of the club from the academy to the training ground. They employ best of class in all aspects of their club. We (United fans) can point to their unlimited spending but everything they do makes sense and leads to success.

There are several smaller Premier League clubs who are a model of sense and planning. Brentford have done very well as have Brighton. What they also do is promote stability. Graham Potter has built steadily and has put together a well coached team who are capable of giving anyone in the league a game. While those clubs were doing that, Manchester United were buying the likes of Alexis Sanchez who only wanted to play in big games and had no interest in running after or chasing players at lower clubs who were outworking him. Some of what Manchester United have done post Ferguson is crazy.

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6355 - 16/08/2022 09:26:39    2437591

Link

Replying To slayer:  "I've been following Manchester United for 41 years.

Cavanman47 is spot on with his assessment. People say the Glazers have spent money. They haven't spent their own money. What they've done is the equivalent of borrowing to fix the roof when the foundations are giving way. They have bled the club dry over a seventeen year period and as cavanman47 pointed out, because of United's size the fall has taken longer to materialise than say Leeds.

I wouldn't hold Ferguson culpable but his row with McManus & Magnier led to the Glazer purchase. You can't control who buys the club in a capitalist environment but leveraged buy outs of a sports club are very dangerous.

Manchester City's owners are a stark contrast to the Glazers. Not only did City's owners invest in the players and Manager but also every single area of the club from the academy to the training ground. They employ best of class in all aspects of their club. We (United fans) can point to their unlimited spending but everything they do makes sense and leads to success.

There are several smaller Premier League clubs who are a model of sense and planning. Brentford have done very well as have Brighton. What they also do is promote stability. Graham Potter has built steadily and has put together a well coached team who are capable of giving anyone in the league a game. While those clubs were doing that, Manchester United were buying the likes of Alexis Sanchez who only wanted to play in big games and had no interest in running after or chasing players at lower clubs who were outworking him. Some of what Manchester United have done post Ferguson is crazy."
This.

People will probably draw attention to moral qualms about the source of the money at Man City and Chelsea, which I agree with to a large extent. But there's no question that the Emiratis and Abramovic put their money where their mouth is, demand success and dispense with those who fail to deliver.

The Glazers, on the other hand, give every impression of not caring if United never win another trophy, provided that the dividends keep rolling in. And clearly, once Ferguson and David Gill left, there was nobody left in power who knew the football business.

I get also that a lot of people will probably enjoy United's plight and that's fair enough, karma's a b**ch, I suppose. I would say myself that their (Woodward's) role in trying to break away to the European Super League was fairly disgraceful.

But unscrupulous owners can also destroy more community-based clubs, like, say, Charlton Athletic, who were in the Premier League 15 years ago but who flirted with relegation to League Two last year, having been bought by a Belgian businessman who decided that he wanted to plunder their very successful academy for his Belgian club. Or Sunderland, who have been a car crash for the last decade. The likes of Bolton and Bury have either ceased to exist or very nearly went to the wall. I seem to recall that one of the owners of Doncaster United went to prison for trying to burn down their stand for the insurance money.

I would suggest that the whole "fit and proper person" ownership rules over the water are not worth the paper they are written on.

Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 16/08/2022 10:20:02    2437600

Link

Who does actually spend their own money besides the state owned clubs which is basically a money laundering and "front" operation. Would Man Utd fans want the owners at Newcastle for example? Would you care about what they are about? Their moral compass is off the charts.

yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11020 - 16/08/2022 12:45:38    2437628

Link

Replying To yew_tree:  "Who does actually spend their own money besides the state owned clubs which is basically a money laundering and "front" operation. Would Man Utd fans want the owners at Newcastle for example? Would you care about what they are about? Their moral compass is off the charts."
But they're not the only alternatives, are they? United only need look down the road to Liverpool to see a canny, well-run operation on and off the pitch. Other big clubs in Europe, like Bayern Munich, Dortmund, Athletic Bilbao etc. actually have the fans play a role in their corporate governance while remaining competitive on the pitch.

Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 16/08/2022 15:59:48    2437687

Link

Replying To Gleebo:  "But they're not the only alternatives, are they? United only need look down the road to Liverpool to see a canny, well-run operation on and off the pitch. Other big clubs in Europe, like Bayern Munich, Dortmund, Athletic Bilbao etc. actually have the fans play a role in their corporate governance while remaining competitive on the pitch."
Exactly.

When Henry took over Liverpool he spoke about the Moneyball approach. They spent 35M on Andy Carroll the same day they got Suarez for a third of the price. So it wasn't an instant success. Henry's 'franchise' model really took off when they got the right Manager in Jurgen Klopp. Since then they have led the way with sensible transfers, a sustainable model and what all fans want - trophies. Might make me vomit in a couple of minutes but hats off to them.

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6355 - 16/08/2022 16:26:29    2437696

Link

Replying To slayer:  "Exactly.

When Henry took over Liverpool he spoke about the Moneyball approach. They spent 35M on Andy Carroll the same day they got Suarez for a third of the price. So it wasn't an instant success. Henry's 'franchise' model really took off when they got the right Manager in Jurgen Klopp. Since then they have led the way with sensible transfers, a sustainable model and what all fans want - trophies. Might make me vomit in a couple of minutes but hats off to them."
I'd agree, but we won't know if Liverpool's success is more down to Klopp than any structures. It looks like they've a strong football department behind the scenes but Klopp is so good it might be him that is bringing success, and we start to see that when he leaves. At City I think, even when Pep leaves City will just keep moving on.

sam1884 (UK) - Posts: 957 - 16/08/2022 17:03:10    2437706

Link

Replying To slayer:  "Exactly.

When Henry took over Liverpool he spoke about the Moneyball approach. They spent 35M on Andy Carroll the same day they got Suarez for a third of the price. So it wasn't an instant success. Henry's 'franchise' model really took off when they got the right Manager in Jurgen Klopp. Since then they have led the way with sensible transfers, a sustainable model and what all fans want - trophies. Might make me vomit in a couple of minutes but hats off to them."
I'm a Liverpool fan and the yes FSG have been mostly good and sensible owners with a few errors on and off the field like the covid furlough off staff at Anfield which had to be reserved but the main reason for liverpools recent success is down to Klopp. I pray they manage his eventual departure well but like Alex Ferguson, how do you replace Klopp?

City (and Newcastle in the future) will just throw billions at it and keep success going.

yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11020 - 16/08/2022 17:09:36    2437709

Link

Those trying to throw the blame at former manager Ferguson is laughable. He had no say in who buys the club and Magnier/McManus never had an interest in buying the club and were always going to sell up their shares. It was Martin Edwards i might add that first floated United on the stock exchange and of course some blame him but the buck stops with the current owners and the Glazers while not spent a penny of their own money have quander United's own resources, buying social media stars not footballers, saddled the club (not themselves) with debt, just to own it. £1.5Bn - £2Bn wasted. Google glazer shopping malls to see how bad of business men there are.

Liverpool in comparison was in a bad place themselves with poor Americans ownership around 2010 and turned it around with ambitious owners with a focus to be as successful on the field as off. Improvements to their training ground, stadium and have got competent people involved to deal with recruitment and transfers all making it a much easier job and environment for Klopp to work and be a success. He would struggle at United and be gone by 2 or 3 years.

Yondu (UK) - Posts: 693 - 16/08/2022 19:37:04    2437728

Link

great finish to better call saul.
anyone else watch it?
Better show than BB and really hope thats the end of the BB universe. think the 2 shows is enough and another wouldnt match those 2 even if gilligan etc were to do it

KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 2805 - 16/08/2022 21:51:31    2437735

Link

link

There's a behind the scenes podcast following the trials and tribulations of the last League One Season for Rotherham and Oxford.

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 6807 - 16/08/2022 21:53:51    2437736

Link

Replying To KillingFields:  "great finish to better call saul.
anyone else watch it?
Better show than BB and really hope thats the end of the BB universe. think the 2 shows is enough and another wouldnt match those 2 even if gilligan etc were to do it"
Love it but haven't seen the final season yet. Watching it through again and up to season 3 now. Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks are amazing as Saul and Mike.

Suas Sios (None) - Posts: 1526 - 17/08/2022 11:33:11    2437757

Link

Replying To KillingFields:  "great finish to better call saul.
anyone else watch it?
Better show than BB and really hope thats the end of the BB universe. think the 2 shows is enough and another wouldnt match those 2 even if gilligan etc were to do it"
I havnt watched the new season of it. I've watched the previous seasons of it and it was excellent. Has it finished for good now, or is it open for further seasons?

Bon (Kildare) - Posts: 1726 - 17/08/2022 13:07:10    2437767

Link

Replying To Yondu:  "Those trying to throw the blame at former manager Ferguson is laughable. He had no say in who buys the club and Magnier/McManus never had an interest in buying the club and were always going to sell up their shares. It was Martin Edwards i might add that first floated United on the stock exchange and of course some blame him but the buck stops with the current owners and the Glazers while not spent a penny of their own money have quander United's own resources, buying social media stars not footballers, saddled the club (not themselves) with debt, just to own it. £1.5Bn - £2Bn wasted. Google glazer shopping malls to see how bad of business men there are.

Liverpool in comparison was in a bad place themselves with poor Americans ownership around 2010 and turned it around with ambitious owners with a focus to be as successful on the field as off. Improvements to their training ground, stadium and have got competent people involved to deal with recruitment and transfers all making it a much easier job and environment for Klopp to work and be a success. He would struggle at United and be gone by 2 or 3 years."
Why would the Glazers spend their own personal finances on transfers when Utd can generate millions every week…. They are not totally stupid.. Signing players who either are over the hill ( Zlatan, Ronaldo, Swinsteger…etc ) or totally overrated ( Maguire, Wan Bisaka , Sancho etc) and putting them on huge contracts is a major problem of their own creation…Utd signed Maguire, Sanchez , Fred and Ronaldo simply because City were showing interest in them but stalled because of the price or wage demands… this did not deter the mighty Utd who thought they were stealing a March on City… In Ronaldos case old whiskey nose Ferguson jumped in and persuaded Ronaldo to reject City and pocket a hand 500k a week and look how that's turned out…. They put a teenager (Greenwood) on 250k a week and he went wild… All madness and miss management… The Glazers can't be blamed for all this but whiskey nose has his fingers stuck in most of it….

ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 1032 - 17/08/2022 13:21:48    2437768

Link

Replying To KillingFields:  "great finish to better call saul.
anyone else watch it?
Better show than BB and really hope thats the end of the BB universe. think the 2 shows is enough and another wouldnt match those 2 even if gilligan etc were to do it"
Brilliant show with great characters, lalo being my favourite. I thought BB was better, the chemistry between Walt and Jesse was excellent and every season improved. BCS dragged a bit in the middle and Chuck annoyed me.

I do hope it's finished and they don't do a Sopranos and release one of the worst movies ever made.

Dec82andahalf (Clare) - Posts: 31 - 17/08/2022 14:09:05    2437773

Link

Replying To Yondu:  "Those trying to throw the blame at former manager Ferguson is laughable. He had no say in who buys the club and Magnier/McManus never had an interest in buying the club and were always going to sell up their shares. It was Martin Edwards i might add that first floated United on the stock exchange and of course some blame him but the buck stops with the current owners and the Glazers while not spent a penny of their own money have quander United's own resources, buying social media stars not footballers, saddled the club (not themselves) with debt, just to own it. £1.5Bn - £2Bn wasted. Google glazer shopping malls to see how bad of business men there are.

Liverpool in comparison was in a bad place themselves with poor Americans ownership around 2010 and turned it around with ambitious owners with a focus to be as successful on the field as off. Improvements to their training ground, stadium and have got competent people involved to deal with recruitment and transfers all making it a much easier job and environment for Klopp to work and be a success. He would struggle at United and be gone by 2 or 3 years."
Magnier and JP were only interested in making a profit. JP follows Arsenal and apparently never went to an United game. Magnier only went to Old Trafford once.

bruffgael (Limerick) - Posts: 31 - 17/08/2022 14:12:28    2437774

Link

Replying To ForeverBlue2:  "Why would the Glazers spend their own personal finances on transfers when Utd can generate millions every week…. They are not totally stupid.. Signing players who either are over the hill ( Zlatan, Ronaldo, Swinsteger…etc ) or totally overrated ( Maguire, Wan Bisaka , Sancho etc) and putting them on huge contracts is a major problem of their own creation…Utd signed Maguire, Sanchez , Fred and Ronaldo simply because City were showing interest in them but stalled because of the price or wage demands… this did not deter the mighty Utd who thought they were stealing a March on City… In Ronaldos case old whiskey nose Ferguson jumped in and persuaded Ronaldo to reject City and pocket a hand 500k a week and look how that's turned out…. They put a teenager (Greenwood) on 250k a week and he went wild… All madness and miss management… The Glazers can't be blamed for all this but whiskey nose has his fingers stuck in most of it…."
I agree with good bit of what you say but to be fair to Fergie allowing Ronaldo to go to City would have been a huge risk. I imagine Guardiola would have adjusted his tactics to get the ball to Ronaldo as often as possible and he'd have been a goal machine for them for 2 seasons. Instead they waited a year, are champions and got Haaland. But I think Ronaldo might have made a difference to them in Europe. We'll never know.

Agree with you on Greenwood, but do you think Ferguson would have mandated those wages?

One thing I disagree with is most owners who want to build trust with the fans stump up some of their own money. the Manchester United Supporters Trust were flagging even before the takeover that the Glazers would not do this. They've taken a huge net figure out of the club - the stadium roof leaks when it rains. They got lucky by having Fergie at the helm for the first 8 years of their tenure. When he stepped away as Manager & David Gill also moved on, it became calamitous. But I do agree with you that Ferguson should have stepped away completely.

You mention madness and mismanagement & both are very apt terms for the club at present.

slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6355 - 17/08/2022 14:39:17    2437777

Link

Replying To slayer:  "I agree with good bit of what you say but to be fair to Fergie allowing Ronaldo to go to City would have been a huge risk. I imagine Guardiola would have adjusted his tactics to get the ball to Ronaldo as often as possible and he'd have been a goal machine for them for 2 seasons. Instead they waited a year, are champions and got Haaland. But I think Ronaldo might have made a difference to them in Europe. We'll never know.

Agree with you on Greenwood, but do you think Ferguson would have mandated those wages?

One thing I disagree with is most owners who want to build trust with the fans stump up some of their own money. the Manchester United Supporters Trust were flagging even before the takeover that the Glazers would not do this. They've taken a huge net figure out of the club - the stadium roof leaks when it rains. They got lucky by having Fergie at the helm for the first 8 years of their tenure. When he stepped away as Manager & David Gill also moved on, it became calamitous. But I do agree with you that Ferguson should have stepped away completely.

You mention madness and mismanagement & both are very apt terms for the club at present."
Guardiola never wanted Ronaldo last summer. Kane was his target and after it was clear that Levy wouldn't sell him Juventus offered Ronaldo to City. They had too many attacking options to get a 36 year old, however good he still is, possibly Guardiola also thought he'd be a disruptive influence in a squad full of talent, work ethic and harmony. Glazer's signed him for his commercial value, his goals were a bonus. It's ridiculous to say that Greenwood might have done what he's accused of doing, because he was on massive money. Apparently when Giggs was of a similar age Ferguson took him under his wing and curbed his partying. Younger kids with more money than Greenwood don't do what he's been accused of doing, some people with more money than him might do so. Fergie had a lot of leeway when he started at United, no social media 'opinion' to sway the thoughts of the United board when things didn't start well. No marketing department monitoring the YouTube comments section for United videos to sell them more 'merchandise'. United, as every club, deserves owners that have the best interest of the club at heart, the pursuit of winning trophies and some of their academy players progressing to their first team. If clubs potential new owners are assessed, even when there might be blind eyes turned to certain ethical criteria, then how they continue to financially run their club also needs to be assessed each season. Daniel Levy could advise on the financial end of things. But the Premier League aren't interested because they have countries worldwide trying to show their games and 20 teams bending over to fit in their schedule to suit broadcasting times.

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 6807 - 17/08/2022 16:37:04    2437790

Link