07 Sep 2023 07:29:30
£900M, yes nearly £1Bn

Reported today, that is the amount just of interest paid on the Glazer loan since inception. That £900m interest has been paid by the club, just imagine that could have rebuilt the stadium, the training facilities but no, it has gone to lenders to enable the leeches to buy and hold the club. That is without all the other costs, the fees, then there is the dividends taken.

£900m and it isn't a repayment loan, there is no reduction, no end date just never ending debt. The debt that did absolutely nothing for the club at all.

Those apologists on here who say they are perfectly entitled to take money, they haven't been bad for the club, ask what £1.5Bn could have done, what the club could have been like. It makes me weep at what they have done.

1.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 10:00:20
Good post red man. Leeches.

2.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 10:31:59
Im sick and tired of hearing media tell us they haven’t been bad owners, look at what they’ve spent. Just support your team and get on with it. It’s lazy journalism and to say that we only complain when we’re losing is laughable. I get the general feeling everybody prefers us this way rather than what we could be if we had proper owners.

3.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 10:32:51
Unbelievable that anyone would justify their continued ownership by saying they have always made money available for transfers. We are neck deep in a debt which hasn't helped the club one bit. To make matters worse, they have continually insisted on hiring amateurs to run the club which has seen us sign players such as Maguire, Sancho, Antony and tens of others at massively inflated amounts. Not even going to talk about the wages. The Glazers are the worst thing that ever happened to our club.

4.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 11:04:05
Good post again Red Man.

5.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 11:20:30
they could be real good owners if they sold the club asap and never came near again -personally or in business dealings!

6.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 11:38:59
Could be worse, It's all going to end badly and we're going to end up with Sam Allardyce.

7.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 11:59:11
Always amazes me how people/ media obsess over “net spend” when it comes to transfers but never talk about “net investment” from owners which would clearly show in black and white numbers the Glazers have been a clear net negative to the club and avoid all this debate.

8.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 16:02:51
The Glazers have not been good owners for the club. Under them we have seen regression in nearly every area of the club in terms of what it means to be a football club. The team is worse, the academy is worse, performances and results are worse, the facilities are worse, hell even the club image is worse.
The only area of improvement is growth in terms of investment through sponsorship.

That said, I think a lot of that blame lies at the door of the board who have made the decisions that have lead to that regression.

I'm certain the Glazers would be much happier if the club had spent half as much on transfers and wages.

While a reduction in the money spent on over inflated transfer fees and ridiculous wages might have released the money needed to invest in the academy, or modernising the scouting system, or renovating the facilities.

Maybe if we paid lower fees and lower wages we would be able to move on the players who don't succeed rather than be stuck with them.

Maybe if we focused on the academy and developing young players (which in terms of football finance is very cheap) then they club would at best been able to produce several quality players for the first team squad, or at worse be able to sell academy prospects for higher fees to offset the costs of buying players in.

Other clubs have shown us up time and time again at being able to scout players and sign them for much, much lower fees while developing them into much better players.

Look at the success of Brighton and Brentford as clubs who have moved with the times and ran their scouting departments in such a way as to make the most out of the limited funds they have.

When teams that size are out performing you in terms of creating a top scouting department on a limited budget then you have to hold your hands up and accept that what you are doing is nowhere near good enough. While a lack of budget or investment cannot be blamed. Brighton and Brentford don't have a better scouting department/ network because they spend more money on it than us.

It's often easy to blame the money or the lack of it. Yes, huge amounts have been lost in dividends, and even more in unnecessary debt repayment and management. But the reality is that the club have still spent a huge amount, and there have been little to no value in any of what they've spent on the team. That isn't good enough, and heads should be rolling for it.

9.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 16:09:37
There was also a report today that showed United had the highest net spend on transfer over the last decade and the third highest transfer spend.

The point for me isn't the Glazers are therefore good owners, its they are appointing and allowing such poor management under their watch and seemingly accepting it.

10.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 16:12:19
All true Redman, that's how I feel too, but one thing you might take into account is that most of the interest was front end loaded. It meant that the squad and the infrastructure began its decay under SAF, when there was "no value" in the market, which was an excuse for not wanting to pay top $ for top talent any more. However after going public the debt was down to a very manageable level. Had the subsequent £1bn been invested wisely by a competent management team, we would not be in this position today. So, whereas, the club would undoubtedly have been better off, were we now in excellent shape with a. great squad and minimal debt, which despite your excellent point we could have been, the Glazers would not necessarily be regarded as the pariahs they have now become. They might thennhave been able to raise money for the modernization of our facilities. Had that been the case they would have been regarded as having been very good AND clever owners. At this point they can lay claim to neither accolade.

11.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 16:44:04
Oakbark who cares about net spend? Just another stick for Sky to ride through the night. Absolute nonsense stat.

12.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 17:00:49
Our out going sales are pitiful. We lose out of value because of the high wages we have compared to other clubs.

We have high wages because of the high revenues we have.

So a fairer comparison would be to compare our net transfer spend over revenue, or some similar ratio that compensates.

13.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 17:53:54
How is net transfer spend a useless stat? It shows exactly how badly run this club is.

We spend a fortune on transfers and recoup very little because we buy so badly. I don't see any argument that says our club is not buying badly, and we can think of many examples over the last decade, Sancho, Sanchez, Pogba, Maguire and many many more.

I don't think there is a club in Europe that has got so many big transfer wrong in the last decade.

14.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 18:39:45
They say everything is a useless stat if it don’t back up todays view that they have and makes united look bad, all those in the tinted glasses think all is rosey in the garden!

15.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 20:30:56
In a way it’s like owning a car. Something goes wrong and you pay for it to be fixed. However if you don’t keep it serviced and well maintained you are just chucking money at it. The Glazers are happy to throw money at what they are told are problems, but are not doing what needs to be done day to day to keep the club good.

16.) 07 Sep 2023
07 Sep 2023 20:46:18
Issues in recruitment have been there for a long long time. Since well before fergie retired.
Anybody who denies that is blinded by bias.

17.) 08 Sep 2023
08 Sep 2023 03:13:31
If you have the largest revenues, your players will demand a share of those large revenues. When we by a star player, they want their share of the pie.

Not difficult to make an arguement for big wages to man utd when you are coming in to play in the first team. I am the first person to say our management team is incompetent, but they do face challenges when bringing players in that most other clubs simply don't face.

That said, we have also pur based far too many players with no sell on value. It is almost like we should get ourselves a competent director of football!

18.) 08 Sep 2023
08 Sep 2023 07:11:36
Dodgy, I understand that perspective but when was the last time we bought bought an established world class player who then put in world class performances for us?

United have always been their most successful when bringing on players with potential and then developing those players to help them reach that potential.

Which is fine, but you don't pay someone for what they might be worth in a few years time if they reach their potential, you pay them what they are worth now. When they prove their worth then you increase their wages to match their output.

Jadon Sancho was signed as a 21 year old with huge potential. He was top an established world class star with years of world class performances under his belt. He wasn't even a regular for his national team.

Yet he was automatically given a wage that made him one of the highest earners at the club and in the league. Having never proven himself to be worth that honour.

He is still being paid more than club captain Bruno, a player who is directly responsible for the most goals in our squad since he signed for the club. A player who has had a contract renewal during that time to increase his wages and reflect his importance to the team. Yet Sancho is still earning 100k per week more, having never even managing 90 minutes of being our best player.

Paying huge wages for proven players with the track record to prove it isn't a problem. The issue is the club gives out these wages BEFORE the players have proven their worth.

When signing players we should be giving out a lower basic wage and larger performance related bonuses. If the player is so confident that they are great then they can prove it and get paid for actual output. With the promise of a contract review after 2 years.

Any player who isn't prepared to move to one of the biggest clubs in the world, on a good contract, but with an expectation that they will have to step up and perform, then they don't have what is needed to be a Manchester United player.

If you're not confident in your ability to reach performance related targets when playing for Manchester United then you don't have the right attitude/ mentality to play for the club.

Those expectations are the same regardless of whether your wages are tied to them or not. You can't live up to those, then you shouldn't be joining the club.

19.) 08 Sep 2023
08 Sep 2023 12:07:09
That is the problem Shappy. The fact we are buying sancho is seen as proof positive he IS the world class star we want him to be. We see it everywhere. If villa signed Hoylund he would be much cheaper than we paid, on lower wages. But if buy him, he is priced as already being the star. Very difficult ultimately for us to buy promising cheaper players these days.

20.) 08 Sep 2023
08 Sep 2023 12:43:43
Shappy I am sorry but you can’t keep chucking this world class bit about, like confetti, Sancho was never World class, probably never will be,

If that’s how you judging players that Sancho was at anytime world class, you might as well say 50% of players in the world are world class, then what do we call the level above Sancho and the level above that, then the elite ones what do we call them?
I just ready someone on here saying Rashford, Gararcho and Greenwood world class and are are on par with Mbappe, how on earth are they measuring that?

World class is bandied about far too easily nowadays!