m-u-f-c Message Board

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Glazers
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    m-u-f-c.co.uk Forum Index -> m-u-f-c General Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dark-shade-of-red



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 5764
Location: Wiltshire

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:54 pm    Post subject: The Glazers Reply with quote

What happened to the LUHG/FCUM/MUST voices who were adamant United would be financially ruined due to the initial excessive loans taken out by Ginger-bearded Fuccaneer to takeover the club?

Although the club still have debt (significant reduced over the years through success and marketing etc), since 2005 have been largely successful and spending big.

And here we are, still one of the biggest clubs in the world.

How did the anti-Glazers get it so wrong? I am not talking about their decision to oppose the Glazers as owners, as they're not the model owners and I'm not talking about some United fans boycotting their season tickets. But those at MUST for example, had given it large that we'd be on our arses "doing a Feeder Club FC" by now.
_________________
"United's success has generated its wealth; City's wealth has generated its success. Anything else is just piss and wind."

Cheerful Sid
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:02 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TOFB



Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 1961
Location: Cavan, Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:54 pm    Post subject: Re: The Glazers Reply with quote

dark-shade-of-red wrote:
What happened to the LUHG/FCUM/MUST voices who were adamant United would be financially ruined due to the initial excessive loans taken out by Ginger-bearded Fuccaneer to takeover the club?

Although the club still have debt (significant reduced over the years through success and marketing etc), since 2005 have been largely successful and spending big.

And here we are, still one of the biggest clubs in the world.

How did the anti-Glazers get it so wrong? I am not talking about their decision to oppose the Glazers as owners, as they're not the model owners and I'm not talking about some United fans boycotting their season tickets. But those at MUST for example, had given it large that we'd be on our arses "doing a Feeder Club FC" by now.

They probably underestimated the Glazers ability to make money and also the growing amounts of money in the game.

There is still a lot of debt there, not even half paid off either which isn’t going to be paid off because of the tax benefits of the interest.

Still a shit tonne of cash flushed down a toilet unnecessarily as a result of their take over. The club could have done with some of that money invested in the youth teams and players.
_________________
"This does not slip now"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tafkaf



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 6410

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have a read of the guardian article dsor

Quote:
Remember those green and yellow scarves, the fear of the Glazer ownership that once permeated this place? Well, it turns out they were right. An avalanche of commercial income may have disguised it, but United are reaping what their owners have sown. There is no evidence of a guiding plan here, no sense of anyone at the top who really cares or knows about the most minute footballing details, who feels this with a genuine passion
.
_________________
We have some right mardy twats as fans, Chubby is the worst.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southern Red



Joined: 08 May 2010
Posts: 2387
Location: Haywards Heath

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We might not be facing financial ruin now, but the club feels ruined. Without success the money will dry up. 'Fans' will lose interest, stop spending the money and the record breaking sponsorship deals will eventually disappear. Right now we are just a prestigious advertising board that is seen around the world. That won't last forever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jackl



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1116
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really great teams last a decade. SAF had in place a squad (some still to mature) and a way of playing by 1993 which saw us through to 2003. From the end of that season there were only 3 of that squad remaining who would be effective for some time (G Nev, Scholes and Giggs). If SAF had gone in 2002 that might have been it but he didn't and he bought 3 players in that pre-Glazer period (Rio, Ronnie and Rooney) who would add to those first 3 and, with the addition post_Glazer of 3 other cut-price brilliant players (VDS, Vida and Patrice) and one home grown one (Fletch) would bring us another 10 years.

There were other good additions of course but crucially no further building for the future in that period. It was the period of "no value in the market", i.e the suggestion that players like Hazard, Aguero and Silva were overvalued and United should not compete for them but leave them to more desperate clubs.

The Glazers were the beneficiaries of that brilliance and the best thing they did was recognise they had a real genius of a leader and reward him accordingly. They also knew how to run a sports brand and maximise its value. They have taken a lot out but much of it is "value" they have added whilst neglecting the team at the expense of the club. In recent years they have done more but when they came to loosen the purse-strings they didn't have the visionary at the helm and the competitive landscape had changed.

If they were to sell it is likely any buyer would debt-finance the purchase in a similar way. MUST was formed with the intention of obtaining a stake which would prevent that but has been left behind by the macro-economics and is probably nothing more now than a supporters' club run for its own senior members' benefit rather than for any aspirations in respect of the team.

In truth, though, all the PL teams are in a similar position. Chelsea are dependent on Abramovich and it is now said he would sell for £3bn because he has been "exiled". If he did that would probably be debt-financed.

City, too, are very much dependent on the whim of their owners. For those clubs it is all a matter of trust. Some of the continental clubs are not so overly dependent on the goodwill of one owner but that is another story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zoolander



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 5923
Location: Duck Fat City Limits

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't quote it verbatim but on the 13th May 2012 after Aguero's late winner David Conn decent journo and arch blue nose wrote a piece along the lines of....
"City have invested over £500m in this team whilst Utd's owners have at present taken around £500m out of the club in management fees etc, so the ultimate cost of that last minute winner is a cool £1 billion"

You can believe what you want but United are worse off under the Glazers.
_________________
The situation regarding spoons remains unchanged, if I see one, I will kill it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chubby



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 3624

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoolander wrote:


You can believe what you want but United are worse off under the Glazers.


^^This^^

The lack of investment, vision and future planning between 2005-2013 caused the issues we're seeing now. There was no value in the market, apparently.
_________________
Nic... I dare say you could kick everyone's arse on Mastermind with United as your specialist subject.... Pedantic wank-wipe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jackl



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1116
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem wasn't 2005 - 2013 because SAF had already seen to that (I missed Carrick out of that list) but from 2008 after the CL win or at the latest 2009. If Ronnie was intent on going his transfer fee should have been reinvested and that investment doubled. That would have left a young nucleus in 2013. That is the time of "no value" and that is when SAF should have called in his marker with the owners.

It isn't either that we have not had some promising young players in that period. We simply haven't given them any opportunity because they weren't ready to depose those in front of them (Pogba), they blew up under pressure (Morrison), or they took their time (Jesse). People like the Keanes were also part of that team but Will was unfortunate with injury. Wilson too had the potential but injudicious use and the changes of manager have knocked him back to ground zero. We now have another good crop and I hope they fare better.

This doesn't solve the current problem and that is definitely not inadequate playing staff. They are not strong enough to win the big ones perhaps but there are 6 or 7 in the first 11 who are the nucleus of a very good side. None of those is ungovernable so I don't really need to state the obvious conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zoolander



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 5923
Location: Duck Fat City Limits

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As is by magic, here's Conn's latest piece on the subject of Utd and the Glazers.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/04/glazers-manchester-united?CMP=share_btn_tw

"Manchester United have been owned by the Glazers for 13 years. No wonder they’re struggling"

"The Glazers’ takeover has drained more than £1bn out of United since 2005, not too far off the amount Sheikh Mansour has invested into City"
_________________
The situation regarding spoons remains unchanged, if I see one, I will kill it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jackl



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1116
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But what 's the issue here? That Mansour (and Abramovich) are great philanthropists? Does this Conn guy not think there might be a price to pay for this socialist tendency to embrace autocracy?

My beef with the Glazers isn't personal and it is certainly not the right of business owners to take profit from a successful business. Is that the issue? That's it wrong for a businessman to share in the wealth of an organisation whose bottom line he has markedly improved? Where I come from profit is the difference between life and death. Some can live on the fat but not forever.

My beef with the Glazers was something for which they weren't even responsible: that they could legally leverage themselves up with debt to take over an institution which was far more than a mere joint stock company and then pile that debt on the acquired institution and tell the rest of us to do one. I still think it outrageous and that will never change but I can see they are a symptom and not a cause.

I am surprised that people like Conn think the totalitarian way is so much better. It is however the ironic history of socialism to turn to autocracy to satisfy the aspirations of equality. The Guardian wouldn't accept that view of itself but it is not strange to see it's journalists flirting with this kind of Platonic vision. An impartial journo for instance might have compared the the positions of the two clubs in 2005 and might have also looked at what Utd has earned in the 13 years since without having to rely on sideways deals with other Mansour sponsored organisations (none of which had declared any profit the last time I looked and I imagine the whole group is deep in debt to its philanthropist so watch that space). Of course none of this would fit the propaganda, another totalitarian tool.

I think your point about a root and branch restructuring is right. Unfortunately it is in the nature of human beings not to fix unbroken things, to enjoy life whilst the sun is shining etc. This does tend to lead them into a false sense of security when they should be carrying out more than routine maintenance. Going through difficult times is, however,more likely to inspire improvement than basking in Schadenfreude.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nicolae



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 11287

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David Conn is a fucking bitter, bellend, self-appointed, financial 'expert'

He is a one trick pony who has been banging the same drum now for over a decade (with no cunt listening)

That is all
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zoolander



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 5923
Location: Duck Fat City Limits

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nicolae wrote:
David Conn is a fucking bitter, bellend, self-appointed, financial 'expert'

He is a one trick pony who has been banging the same drum now for over a decade (with no cunt listening)

That is all


Ironic then, is it not, that apart from the fat cunt from little & large he's the one div that most people have heard of.

Says a lot about divs.
_________________
The situation regarding spoons remains unchanged, if I see one, I will kill it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zoolander



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 5923
Location: Duck Fat City Limits

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jackl wrote:
But what 's the issue here? That Mansour (and Abramovich) are great philanthropists? Does this Conn guy not think there might be a price to pay for this socialist tendency to embrace autocracy?

My beef with the Glazers isn't personal and it is certainly not the right of business owners to take profit from a successful business. Is that the issue? That's it wrong for a businessman to share in the wealth of an organisation whose bottom line he has markedly improved? Where I come from profit is the difference between life and death. Some can live on the fat but not forever.

My beef with the Glazers was something for which they weren't even responsible: that they could legally leverage themselves up with debt to take over an institution which was far more than a mere joint stock company and then pile that debt on the acquired institution and tell the rest of us to do one. I still think it outrageous and that will never change but I can see they are a symptom and not a cause.

I am surprised that people like Conn think the totalitarian way is so much better. It is however the ironic history of socialism to turn to autocracy to satisfy the aspirations of equality. The Guardian wouldn't accept that view of itself but it is not strange to see it's journalists flirting with this kind of Platonic vision. An impartial journo for instance might have compared the the positions of the two clubs in 2005 and might have also looked at what Utd has earned in the 13 years since without having to rely on sideways deals with other Mansour sponsored organisations (none of which had declared any profit the last time I looked and I imagine the whole group is deep in debt to its philanthropist so watch that space). Of course none of this would fit the propaganda, another totalitarian tool.

I think your point about a root and branch restructuring is right. Unfortunately it is in the nature of human beings not to fix unbroken things, to enjoy life whilst the sun is shining etc. This does tend to lead them into a false sense of security when they should be carrying out more than routine maintenance. Going through difficult times is, however,more likely to inspire improvement than basking in Schadenfreude.


What. The. Actual. Fuck?
_________________
The situation regarding spoons remains unchanged, if I see one, I will kill it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jackl



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1116
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoo, I didn't quite catch the part which caused the anguish. Was it

1. Not all football club owners need to be net contributors, just the ones whose clubs can't support themselves.
2. Business owners should be allowed to share in the success of their businesses.
3. United has earned more in the past 13 years than City.
4. Leveraging up with debt in order to acquire a debt-free asset only to burden it with debt reveals a flaw in the capitalist system.
5. The City owners will one day call in their marker (whichever way you categorise the enormous debt they have created).
6. David Conn may not be the most impartial nor the most perspicacious of journalists.
7. Socialists have a dangerous tendency to prefer the closed society to the open.

It can't be the root and branch reform as this was your thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bondurant



Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's possible he didn't understand a word that you wrote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    m-u-f-c.co.uk Forum Index -> m-u-f-c General Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group