Our Debt

Correct. Given the difficult financial situation these last few years I think the Glazers have done well in balancing debt repayment against increasing non-match day revenues. You can't have both in the modern business world, that's the same for United as it is for any business. Our club is no difference from many large corporations out there. If one large corporation takes over another, they don't stump up billions of their own worth to finance the deal, they borrow it. Having done so they usually streamline processes to shave costs and normally shed staff - the Glazers can't do either. Instead they have had to rely on Woodward's considerable commercial nous to pull in mega-sponsorship/partnership deals - without which we would have been dead in the transfer market these last five years.

 

We've had this debate before - he was more restricted, imo, under the plc than under the Glazers. Once again referring to the last annual report under the plc:

http://files.investis.com/manutd/presentations/mut04_final_abp.pdf

"Since the end of the financial year we completed the acquisition of Wayne Rooney from Everton. Wayne Rooney is a player whose skills we have admired for a number of years and his performances at Euro 2004 only increased this interest. Our plans were to bid for the player in summer 2005, but Newcastle United’s bid and Everton’s subsequent interest in selling him, forced us to accelerate our plans or risk losing him. As a result we have now spent next summer’s transfer budget unless players are disposed of to realise cash for re-investment"

Therefore £27 million on Rooney was two years worth of transfer budget for the plc. SAF never spent less than £18m under the Glazers.

I don't believe SAF deliberately spent less than he needed to make himself look good. But ultimately throughout his career he only spent big when he felt he needed to in order to challenge for the title. Big signings almost always came after years when we had struggled, or needed to replace players.

From 2007 to 2013 we were never more than one point off winning the title, and reached three CL finals over seven seasons. So I don't think he ever felt the need to splash cash on a massive purchase who could have ended up like another Berbatov or Veron.

Also if he was denied funds by the Glazers, why has he never mentioned that since he retired? If he genuinely was limited in his spending, and genuinely felt that hindered his ability to achieve success, he'd have spoken about it over the past four years.

After all, his last book gave both barrels to pretty much anyone he had any issues with, why would he not speak out if he felt the Glazers hindered his ability to win trophies? He was happy enough to slate Martin Edwards for refusing to meet Batistuta's wage demands in 1998, and the plc for refusing to match Chelsea on Robben in 2004.

 

He's a director of the club.


We were buying cheap 'possibles' during the Glazers first years rather than gilt edged definites. Some paid off, a lot didn't.

They would allow the odd marquee signing here and there but that's it. There is no way I accept that after years of recycling his side when it was required he would suddenly completely change his MO and let the whole midfield and defence turn to **** before our eyes, just as he was about to leave.

I don't buy it.

 

I certainly agree it became like Wenger towards the end of SAF's tenure. Not so much looking after the club's finances, but rather a couple of decades of careful transfer management, and being bitten on some of the big signings like Veron, made SAF less willing to throw big money at anything that moved. After all, when you've signed players like Cantona, Keane and Ronaldo for bargain prices, you become wary of chucking £40m plus at a player who is at best a poor replacement.

Although I don't agree he was never shy to spend money during other periods. We missed out on plenty of players in the past, like Shearer, Essien, Duff and others, out of an unwillingness to spend massively even when the money was there. And don't forget the 'never win anything with kids' years.

I always thought SAF was willing to spend big when he felt it was needed, but spent very little when he didn't, and the change of ownership didn't affect his modus operandi in any major way.

 

Yes, it did.

The likes of Giggs, Carrick, Scholes, Vidic, Ferdinand, Evra would have been replaced, or have a replacement in place, long before they became too old or injured to be useful if he followed his usual MO.

 

You think he'd accept that if he felt the club and owners had fobbed him off for money in his last decade? Would he really have stuck around as an ambassador for the owners if he felt he had an axe to grind? He's worth £50 million, I don't buy him being muzzled by the need for money.

Nothing different from the period under the plc. Lots of cheap possibles - Alan Smith as a replacement for Roy Keane, Tim Howard, Djemba, Kleberson, Bellion, Forlan, Silvestre, Fortune, Taibi etc etc.

Even the expensive 'marquee' signings were often replacements for the players we didn't get. Sheringham as we could't afford Shearer, Yorke after we missed Batistuta, Ronaldo after we missed Ronaldinho.

 

He tried to replace Giggs with Robben and Duff - both denied by the plc. Same with Essien for Keane.
Jones and Smalling were intended replacements for Vidic and Ferdinand, Kagawa and Anderson for Scholes.

They were poor signings, but it was his choice to buy them - the Jones and Smalling money could easily have gone on Varane or Kompany.

I agree he has faced some restrictions on spending, Aguero probably the most obvious. But I don't see any difference between that and the restrictions under the plc structure. The main difference, imo, has been the quality of the signings rather than the amounts made available for them.

 

I thought he went in for Shearer on about 3 occasions and Shearer told him to **** off?

 

We never actually had a deal accepted for Shearer for him to ever tell us to **** off.

We where priced out of the deal when he went to Newcastle. Blackburn wanted 15 million from Newcastle, but said we would have to pay 20 million for a deal to be accepted.

Baring in mind 15 million was a transfer record anyways, so 20 million was a lot of money for a club to spend back in those days.

 

Our budget was limited to a maximum of £12 million for Shearer anyway, so we couldn't even match Newcastle. Hence we ended up with Yorke for £12 million a couple of seasons later.