05 May 2021 07:23:46
So, I have been reading sporadically over the past couple of days, but I'm in the middle of exam week so my ability to engage in these discussions is sadly limited this week.

United Addict, I've had a look down the back of the sofa but I'm a little short of the 4Bn needed, maybe we can have a whip around?

I've seen the debate between Ken and GDS, and honestly, I can see both sides. On one hand there is absolutely no sane reason why the Glazers would sell the club currently. It just doesn't make financial sense; you don't sell the goose that lays the golden eggs. While on the small-scale individual level that GDS lives on him alone giving up his season ticket won't make a lot of difference as there are dozens of people who are willing to buy up his season ticket even now. So, he would lose out for little to no gain.

When it comes to the Glazers ownership, I have mixed feelings. I hate the way they bought the club; I wholeheartedly disagree with it. Yet from a business sense it was a brilliant deal. I'm unhappy with the lack of investment in facilities, the club makes enough money to repair the stadium roof, we can afford to redecorate and improve the facilities. However, for some reason they choose not to. It might be that they don't see it as a necessary investment, or they may not really be aware of the condition. They are very "hands off" owners. They have though allowed the investment in players, which as fans surely, we care more about the quality on the pitch than the shade of paint on the walls.

The issue is their "hands off" approach is a double-edged sword, the benefit of not having a meddling owner who doesn't understand football making footballing decisions can be disastrous. We have seen many lower league clubs and even ex-EPL sides tumble down the leagues and even go out of existence due to owners trying to play fantasy football with a real club. However, the "hands off" approach also means that there is somewhat of a power vacuum, no clear vision from the top, no real footballing understanding making key footballing decisions.

My biggest complaint of the Glazer ownership isn't them taking dividends, it's their choices in who to have running the shop. If they had hired the best in class in terms of running a football club and not a hedge-fund then they could have spent significantly less than the 1bn+ on players that they have and still be in a better position on the pitch. That money saved could have been spent on facilities or whatever. The reality of our current footballing malaise isn't a lack of spending on players it's a combination of hiring the wrong managers and spending huge amounts on the wrong players. Someone pointed out that we spent 80m on Maguire while City spent 40m on Dias. Fellaini, Schniederlin, Schweinsteiger, Di Maria, Lukaku, Blind, Lindelof, Maguires, Dalot, Fred, Sanchez, Mkhitaryan, etc, etc. Just look at all that money spent on those players wasted, how many of those players have made a telling contribution to our team? Spent more wisely by people who understand football and we could have a side that could genuinely be challenging City for the title this season, regardless of the Glazers dividends.

When people say we need a back up RB, hello what about the 20m spent on Dalot, or even Williams?
We need at least one top quality CB after spending on Rojo, Blind, Bailly, Lindelof and Maguire to the tune of 180m+. That isn't a lack of investment, its spunking money up the wall.
We need a CDM, yet we spent 50m+ on Fred less than 3 years ago.
We need a RW, have we signed a RW? Not really, certainly not someone who primarily plays from the right. We have bought square pegs for a round hole and tried to crowbar James, Mkhitaryan etc into the RW spot, as well as trying a striker in Greenwood and a CAM in Lingard there from our own academy. With all that money spent no one special-ist right sided attacker signed, that's just incompetence.
We need a striker, yet we spent huge amounts on Martial, Zlatan, Lukaku and Cavani. That is over 180m on strikers in transfer fees and signing on fees. You shouldn't be able to spend 180m on one position and still not have a good enough option there. Again, that isn't a lack of investment its just money being poorly spent.

So, the real issue for me with the Glazer ownership isn't dividends or debt, it's the simple poor running of the club. For the sums spent we should be a much better side. We aren't and that is due to the amateur way the club is run.

As for trying to force the Glazers out, I will say be careful what you wish for. There are no guarantees the next people will be better than the current ones. But if you are determined to try and shift them then Ken is right you need to hit them in the wallet. However, I don't think giving up season tickets is a realistic way of doing that. We have too many fans who'll just buy them up. That would need to be a coordinated effort across millions of fans. Sadly, that just won't happen. However, ticket sales are only a fraction of the clubs income. If you really want to hit them in the wallet you need to start protesting against the sponsors. Sponsors only pay huge sums for good publicity and being aligned with our club brings. As fans we have the ability to flip that on its head, make it that brands such as Adidias and all the other corporate sponsors are getting bad publicity from their connection to the club and suddenly sponsorship will dry up. You would reduce a massive revenue stream and there won't be anything the Glazers could do about it.

1.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 08:08:28
For every Dias there is a Mangala. I seem to remember City were also in for Maguire, we just outbid them. If City outbid us for the likes of Maguire, I'm sure many United supporters would have complained.

2.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 09:16:37
Grim, ManCity realized that an average player like Maguire was not worth that amount of money.
Right move from them.

We on the other hand broke the world record transfer for a defender knowing he has BIG deficiencies in his game and need another defender to address it.
Yet another shocking decision making from the amateurs.

3.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 09:19:27
Maybe Grim, I wouldn't have been one of them as I did say before we signed Maguire that he wasn't a player I thought was good enough.

Maguire isn't a bad player, he's just limited in certain aspects. As such he isn't worth the sort of fee we paid for him.

Is he any better than Fofana who Leicester signed for around 30m?

I appreciate that not all transfers work out. Yet our hit rate is extremely low. Personally I think the lack of structure, vision and planning is behind it.

We don't have a clear vision of how we want to play.

We don't create pathways for our academy lads into the first team.

We sign players who are playing well in a vastly different set up to the one we play.

We have in the past seemingly signed players for their brand appeal as much as for their footballing ability, or they're suitability for the current squad. Vanity signings.

Maguire is a case in point. Bought because of his nationality as much as for his footballing ability. Anyone who had scouted Maguire would be well aware of his limitations. I'm not a professional scout and I could see them from the limited minutes I saw him play for Leicester and England. It was clear then that we didn't have the sort of defenders at the club who had the ability to mitigate his weaknesses. While it's arguable that his biggest strengths (playing out from the back, and getting on the end of crosses both in defence and attack) didn't really suit our playing style at the time. We were/ are a counter attacking side, not a possession based side. Our full backs tended to bomb forward leaving the wide areas exposed meaning that instead of crosses coming into our box for Maguire to defend it was quick players cutting in and running at him at pace. Something Maguire has always struggled with due to his lack of pace and mobility. While we had no one at the time who could deliver quality accurate crosses from set pieces for Maguire to attack in the oppositions box.

Since his signing we have had to adapt our play to mitigate his weaknesses. We now play with narrower almost inverted full backs so as to not leave Maguire isolated, we have also had to move to a defensive minded double pivot to further shield the defence, in an attempt to force attackers wide and to cross into the box to play to Maguire's strengths. As a side note this has exposed Lindelof's aerial weakness.

Many of the team's current set up issues stem from a slight shift in tactical set up to mitigate an £80m signing. That's ridiculous, and highlights the poor scouting, planning and flawed thinking that goes into our signings.

4.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 09:32:37
Do we have that much over subscription for season tickets? Would GDS or anyone else’s be snapped up so quickly? In the old days maybe but now I am not convinced at all. There is no waiting list, it’s very expensive as a hobby with major commitment for games that can now be any day of the week, you have to have ultimate flexibility with work and home to go.

Like Shappy I see both sides, I know how hard it is to give up a season ticket held for decades. Yet I also know financial is the best tool to fight with. Thing is giving up a season ticket isn’t that big a deal, it’s your other activities that actually count, they make their real money on advertising and big deals with sponsors. Stop spending in the ground, the shop, on line, on those who sponsor or on mutv would likely be more effective than giving up your ST.

5.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 10:40:29
RedMan - even more difficult for folk financially due to C.V. affecting jobs, income etc.

6.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 11:23:20
Wonder how long that post would have been if you weren't doing exams Shaps ;)

I can see both sides of the debate also, but I am not a fan of being told to give up my season ticket or I can't have an opinion.

7.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 11:38:44
Shappy, I can't help but think about your lecturers and professors having to go through your essays and thesis. I am sure because of you they now start questions with 'In hundred words or less, explain . . '

Couldt help it pal :)

8.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 13:46:24
Who said you couldn't have an opinion and nobody told you to do anything.

9.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 17:44:42
There have been two phases to the Glazer's ownership:

1. The 1st 10 years was spent servicing the LBO debt and thus failing to pay the cost of replacing our quality players with those of similar quality while rival clubs, unburdened by debt load, caught us up when they were acquired by billionaires using their own money. This phase can be summed up by SAF's "there's no value in the transfer market". Advantage over.

2. The post SAF era when, finally, money was then thrown at the problem. However it seems to have been done in a hasty desperate manner without any cohesive on the field planning as might have been provided by a technical director.

You can choose to blame who you want - none of the main protagonists look that good - but to me the old adage "The buck stops here" applies.

10.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 19:02:50
Maybe SAFs "there is no value in the transfer market" was the truth and mean it. SAF replaced Ronaldo with Valencia and fans are accuse Glazers for this.
What if SAF simply wanted Valencia? Previous two years SAF took Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson, Tevez on loan and Berbatov. So they backed him. I can't believe SAF was a yes man and played with Glazers cards when he said there is no value. O think he simply meaned it.

11.) 05 May 2021
05 May 2021 21:18:58
Thanks guys, second exam of the week finished and I was even a few words below the word count 😂

Herrera, it was the timing of Sir Alex's comments. There was a global financial crisis that the Glazers hadn't expected and as such the high interest loans took a hammering. The club had a big financial black hole at the time and selling Ronaldo saved huge financial penalties.

Money was tight for a few seasons, almost entirely because of the debt. That was when Sir Alex said there was no value in the market.