You tell me. All I saw from that time was the board stating that Rooney's transfer would be the only spending we would commit to between summer 2004 and summer 2006, causing us to miss out on Robben and Essien who were perfect replacements for Keane and Giggs, and despite being in our worst slump for 15 years at the time. Just ask SAF: "Lyon always wanted the best buyers for their players and Chelsea gave the best offer. So he(Essien) joined Chelsea." - Outbid for Essien "The negotiations started three or four weeks ago, just after the deal with Manchester United fell through. United were first in the queue so we kept Chelsea waiting, but when we had our second discussion with United over a fee, we were very disappointed over how low they believed they could push us." - Missed out on Robben due to financial constraints. The Glazers come along and we sign Park, VDS, Vidic and Evra in that same period, then get Carrick the next year and head straight back to the top of the table again. Call me old fashioned, but I judge on what I see, not on what 'must surely' be the case. I'm not denying we have faced some constraints under the Glazers, but to claim that prior to 2005 we were in some debt free paradise where we bought players at will and no one could match us is patently not true.
I don't think I have ever claimed that. I realise that when the GGs came along United were already under pressure from the emergence of the clubs whose owners could spend whatever they wanted. But compared to these owners the GGs had NO interest in improving or maintaining the club's status. All they saw was a cash cow rich for milking. They saw an opportunity to grab the club with very little investment of their own and which they recouped quickly by all sorts of financial manoeuvres. Consultancy fees running into millions (!), listing on the NYC stock exchange to get hundred of millions etc. The GGs did not improve United's ability to compete for the top players with City and the Chavs, Real, Barcelona, PSG, Monaco. We had owners who took money OUT of the club whereas the others PUMPED money IN.
I'm still giving Manchester United to prove their worth since Louis van Gaal is still coping with the Premier League lifestyle, like what he said give him atleast three months to revamp Man U. We'll see if after three months and nothing happens I think they should sell Rooney and Mata.
Disagree there. Football clubs are terrible cash cows - the Glazers bought Utd for £800 million when our profits were around £30m a year. If they wanted cash they would have bought a company like Cadbury who would cost the same but provide about £80m in net profits per year, and with much less resistance. The Glazers are going to make their money by boosting the value of Utd when they sell it. Their focus has been on doing that through improving sponsorship and the commercial side, not on taking cash out - they've hardly taken any dividends since their takeover, whilst the club's value has gone from £800 million to over £2 billion. I agree with you there. Although I would also say the same for the plc - they were the ones fiddling whilst Utd burned at the hands of Chelsea, Real and Barca in the early 2000s. And don't forget that Arsenal have had a nice sustainable plc business model since 2004, only borrowing to invest in infrastructure, and look how they've done over the period, hamstringing themselves with ****ty long term sponsorship deals which have seen them fall behind Chelsea, City, and arguably even Liverpool. I'm not saying the Glazers are great owners, and they debt is certainly an issue. But in the absence of someone willing and able to buy Utd from the plc without needing to take on debt, I don't think they are as bad as you and others want to make out. We also suffered due to our value and success. Remember that if Abramovich or Mansour had bought Utd in 2005, 80% of the cash they have pumped into buying players would have been spent on the value of the club. Ultimately we are too big a club for any rich owner to treat as a plaything, regardless of how much money they have.
But surely servicing the debt is the same as taking a dividend at the end of the day when they sell the club it ends up in their pocket. It was the same with G&H but Liverpool did not make enough money to make the repayments so they lost out. I'm not saying that the GG haven't given the money to spend but as we know to well it hasn't been invested wisely, perhaps to much of the focus was on the off the field performance.
I don't agree with you on that. The value of United according to the listed shares on the NY stock exchange is about £1.85billion. Yes it would take a very rich billionaire but there are people around (Middle East, Far East, Russian) who are worth at least 10 times that United value. If they wanted a high profile plaything with their names in the news every week, they could easily afford to buy the club. They may need to pump a few hundred millions from time to time but this would represent only a fraction of their worth.
Most football clubs are terrible cash cows. But United was almost unique at that time in making money. Yes the revenue may have been limited but sponsorships and TV monies were bound to massively increase the income. Whilst they may not have taken the income money, they have found other ways of getting equity from the company. Yes, they took no or very little dividend but what about this annual consultancy fees being paid to the GGs? this was almost £100million for the last few years. Consultancy for what? how to run a football club or how to extract the most money from a company... AND there is the share issue of 15% of the company which gave the GGs more than £200m and in one swoop gave them back the total amount they invested whilst retaining possession of 85% of a £1.85billion asset i.e nearly £1.5 billion (minus some £300m in loans). Who needs dividends when you can make so much money out of the club and the banks?
Tash, you got most of it right but - 'Young is alright but not top quality'. 'alright' ??? - he's utterly useless. SAF knew the writing was on the wall, he's laughing his ass off.
As much as pains me to say so, as businessmen, the Glazers have done nothing wrong, in fact they have been very clever, making money with little or no effort, as every good businessman should do. They couldn't give a toss about what the supporters think, or if they complain the tickets are too expensive, or the beer tastes like piss. Prior to the Glazers, the PLC was exactly the same. The only people they cared about was the shareholders. While there are hundred of thousands of 'glory supporters' who are willing to spend vast amounts of money traveling half way around the world to have a once in a lifetime trip to OT, the Glazers are not going to change a thing. Asda couldn't give a flying f** what Mrs Jones thinks about the shops as long as she is willing to spend money. And there is a million Mrs Jones. The one thing they have dropped bollock on is letting SAF and Gill leave at the same time. Which was for all to see last summer/season. Utd are not likely to loose tens of thousand fans because of one bad season. four or five years of not competing may start to change that, and to prevent that from happening, Utd are going to need to bring some top quality players in or hope LVG can do a Fergie, and get more out of a player and get a good team to play like a great team. On another note. Is it plausible that Moyes was brought in, because there may have not been the funds available to get the very best, and he was able to a good job with next to nothing at Everton. Just a thought.
That is exactly the point I have made so many times. This should never have been allowed to happen. If I had the money I would probably have done it too. The rules should be tightened so that a football club (with virually a monopoloy in terms of customer base - most fans remain fans) could not be acquired using loans taken against its own assets as collateral and not against the buyers assets. I know it has been rehearsed time and time again but the club moved from a debt free company to one that owed hundreds of millions and lumbered with huge interest repayments. I doubt anyone could buy Bayern, Madrid, Barca, Dortmund on that basis. Chelsea and City got bought with the buyers huge wealth and not with the club's assets FFS!! RE: Moyes. I had thought that too. Fergie like he did in the GG years thought he could be helpful to the owners in getting a proven cheapskate who could make do without spending huge amounts of money year in year out. Ferguson closeness to the GGs was to me quite disappointing.
Fair points bar the last bit since you do apparently have money to spend. Felliani, Mata, Shaw, Herrara and now Rojo suggests this is the case too.
This is because United are in desperate trouble. Even people as money grabbing as the GGs realised that if they do not spend and spend big (I said £300m from Fellaini onwards) their asset currently worth 1.5 billion would be worth less and the sponsorship deals will come down too. This is pure self preservation. That level of expenditure would not have happened if United had won the itle last season (or even got into the CL).
Is this your prediction 3 years ago Tash? http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...B0966617691B103635AAF8B8E5D3&selectedIndex=80
