Illimitable:


They have been approached several times - they refused to sell. They were approached in 2010 by Red Knights.

The Glazers are greedy bastards. I don’t know how you can even lend any support to these parasites that have ruined United from the crust to the core.

They have paid themselves more than they have invested in players in the last 10 years.

The chart is okay, but the conclusion does not make sense.

1. Wages and investment in players is close to 75% of total use of proceeds. That's massive, what else do you want na?
2. People should stop saying that debt repayment and interest payments are going directly to the Glazers. Dividends and share sales are major source of inflows to these guys. The debt paymnets go to lenders.

Sir Alex Ferguson leaving the Lowry hotel with PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi today #mulive [men]

olabode89:


You are the only one propagating this notion... lmao!

Yes, the Glazers took over the club using a leverage buyout that heaped a debt of about 600M pounds on the club,but they didn't break any law. The UK govt should have prevented the move but they failed to do so.

Whatever you say about the Glazers with respect to their handling of the club do not forget that they implemented an aggressive commercial push that increased our revenue substantially. Although the yearly 25M dividend payment they receive is a bad look for them when compared to other owners.

Many people are uninformed. Even the 25m dividend is not bad. Total payment was just 244m (out of inflow of 6.8 billion), which is less than the equity they put in. So, they should just invest everything in the club, without any sort of compensation to themselves?

A club that does about 75% of proceeds on players, and another 18% on operating expenses is not doing badly. The propaganda is BS, honestly.

Illimitable:


They have been approached several times - they refused to sell. They were approached in 2010 by Red Knights.

The Glazers are greedy bastards. I don’t know how you can even lend any support to these parasites that have ruined United from the crust to the core.

They have paid themselves more than they have invested in players in the last 10 years.

Red knights wanted to buy man utd at 1 billion. Just imagine!

The Glazers purchased for 800m in 2005, and you want them to sell to Red Knights at 200m profit after 5 years.

Are you a prodigal son?

olabode89:


You are the only one propagating this notion... lmao!

Yes, the Glazers took over the club using a leverage buyout that heaped a debt of about 600M pounds on the club,but they didn't break any law. The UK govt should have prevented the move but they failed to do so.

Whatever you say about the Glazers with respect to their handling of the club do not forget that they implemented an aggressive commercial push that increased our revenue substantially. Although the yearly 25M dividend payment they receive is a bad look for them when compared to other owners.

Which commercial push are you talking about? Which other club didn’t implement an aggressive commercial push?

While it is true they tripled United’s commercial revenue from £173m in 2005 to £509m in 2020, Man City and Liverpool have overtaken the slumbering Man United in the same period.

Man City’s revenue grew from £62m to £478m
Liverpool’s revenue went from £119m to £490m
Tottenham’s revenue rose from £74m to £392m

The Glazers have been grossly overrated. With or without them, Man Utd’s revenue would have grown because of the amount of money pumped into football in the last decade.

nitrogen:


Red knights wanted to buy man utd at 1 billion. Just imagine!

The Glazers purchased for 800m in 2005, and you want them to sell to Red Knights at 200m profit after 5 years.

Are you a prodigal son?

£200m profit was a lot of money in a football as at 2010. The most expensive player transfer as at 2010 was Ronaldo(£80m). £200m in 2010 would have bought 2 & half Ronaldos.

How much will buy 2 and half Neymars today? £220 * 2.5 = £550m. So you are saying £550m isn’t enough profit for the Glazers after 5 years of debt, high interest rates and repayments?

Really?

nitrogen:


The chart is okay, but the conclusion does not make sense.

1. Wages and investment in players is close to 75% of total use of proceeds. That's massive, what else do you want na?

2. People should stop saying that debt repayment and interest payments are going directly to the Glazers. Dividends and share sales are major source of inflows to these guys. The debt paymnets go to lenders

But they are the cause of the debt.

The club had zero debt until they arrived. The club had no financial issue until they heaped the debt on the club. So whose liability is the debt repayment and interest rates? Who should bear the brunt of that?

They brought the debt to the club so it’s their shit. That’s the best way to put it. If United were bankrupt before they arrived and they used debt to save the club from liquidation, you would have a point. The club was super healthy before they showed up so who do you want to blame for the debt? Roy Keane?

Who dhey cut soap for this man nii

Illimitable:


£200m profit was a lot of money in a football as at 2010. The most expensive player transfer as at 2010 was Ronaldo(£80m). £200m in 2010 would have bought 2 & half Ronaldos.

How much will buy 2 and half Neymars today? £220 * 2.5 = £550m. So you are saying £550m isn’t enough profit for the Glazers after 5 years of debt, high interest rates and repayments?

Really?

You are looking at this in absolute terms. It does not work that way. The IRR is less than 5%, which does not make sense. If they had invested in the index or in another company, they would have hit 20% IRR or 2x invested capital in 5 years.

Forget about the debt, it's a capital structure thing, no one cares as long as the business can settle operating expenses, and make normal investments (re: buying of players). Man Utd is doing okay, you cant spend 2 billion on player acquisitions in just 1 decade. No club has ever done that. Does not make sense. If they had bought with 100 percent equity, they would have taken out the 1 billion spent on debt servicing as cash from the business, and spend the remaining 1 billion on players (which is sufficient).

Meanwhile, dont forget that apart from 1 billion expended on acquisition of players, they have spent 2.9 billion and 1.2 billion on wages and operating expenses respectively. What else do you want?

nitrogen:


Many people are uninformed. Even the 25m dividend is not bad. Total payment was just 244m (out of inflow of 6.8 billion), which is less than the equity they put in. So, they should just invest everything in the club, without any sort of compensation to themselves?

A club that does about 75% of proceeds on players, and another 18% on operating expenses is not doing badly. The propaganda is BS, honestly.

This is also terrible business on their part.

United have the lowest amount of player sales in the top 6. If you go deeper, they are even worse than Everton and Southampton in the past 11 years.

Chelsea have made £707m in player sales, Liverpool made £552m but United could only boast of £291m sales in the past 11 years. Glazernomics is actually harming the club, not helping it.

However, through the United media machine that continues to lie to the fans, we overrate these parasites. All they do is dishing out contracts to players past their peak that nobody wants.

Explain to me why Jones hasn’t been sold. He’s barely kicked a ball in the last 3 years and the Glazers gave him a juicy contract for nothing. United are 8th in player sales. Shitty clubs like Southampton and Arsenal make more money selling players than United.

Are you sure the propaganda is BS or you have consented to Woodward pulling a thick wool over your eyes?

The mind boggles.

JayKayMaybachz:
Who dhey cut soap for this man nii

A man with 25 major trophies can never be out of demand.

Illimitable:


Which commercial push are you talking about? Which other club didn’t implement an aggressive commercial push?

While it is true they tripled United’s commercial revenue from £173m in 2005 to £509m in 2020, Man City and Liverpool have overtaken the slumbering Man United in the same period.

Man City’s revenue grew from £62m to £478m
Liverpool’s revenue went from £119m to £490m
Tottenham’s revenue rose from £74m to £392m

The Glazers have been grossly overrated. With it without them, Man Utd’s revenue would have grown because of the amount of money pumped into football in the last decade.

Again, you dont understand how these things work. Look at it this way, Man Utd is a more mature entity vs Man City. The growth you would see in relative terms will be higher for City because the fame just started. Man Utd is already up there, City will be more appealing to fans and sponsors because it's a new kid on the block, significant growth will be seen by City in a very short time.

Illimitable:


This is also terrible business on their part.

United have the lowest amount of player sales in the top 6. If you go deeper, they are even worse than Everton and Southampton in the past 11 years.

Chelsea have made £707m in player sales, Liverpool made £552m but United could only boast of £291m sales in the past 11 years. Glazernomics is actually harming the club, not helping it.

However, through the United media machine that continues to lie to the fans, we overrate these parasites. All they do is dishing out contracts to players past their peak that nobody wants.

Explain to me why Jones hasn’t been sold. He’s barely kicked a ball in the last 3 years and the Glazers gave him a juicy contract for nothing. United are 8th in player sales. Shitty clubs like Southampton and Arsenal make more money selling players than United.

Are you sure the propaganda is BS or you have consented to Woodward pulling a thick wool over your eyes?

The mind boggles.

Clubs have different models. City, Real Madrid, Barca wont bring in a lot from player sales. They dont care if you have a net spend of 0$ (re: player sales and acquisitions). They want to continue to make their brands bigger by signing expensive players and make money off them.

Chelsea on the other hand relies on player sales to fund more than half of player acquisitions. Different clubs with different models.

Better calm down and learn how these things work.

nitrogen:

You are looking at this in absolute terms. It does not work that way. The IRR is less than 5%, which does not make sense. If they had invested in the index or in another company, they would have hit 20% IRR or 2x invested capital in 5 years.

No one asked for them. No one wanted them. The club wasn’t in any financial trouble. They just arrived overnight and heaped loads of debt on the club. They don’t deserve more than £200m profit in 2010 considering they didn’t drop a single penny in the purchase of the club.

nitrogen:

Forget about the debt, it's a capital structure thing, no one cares as long as the business can settle operating expenses, and make normal investments (re: buying of players). Man Utd is doing okay, you cant spend 2 billion on player acquisitions in just 1 decade. No club has ever done that. Does not make sense. If they had bought with 100 percent equity, they would have taken out the 1 billion spent on debt servicing as cash from the business, and spend the remaining 1 billion on players (which is sufficient).

I should forget about the debt that has sucked £704m on interests alone? Are you alright? Without the debt, the £704m wasted on interest alone could have gone to buy more players or fix the dilapidated stadium that was leaking rain water few seasons ago.

nitrogen:

Meanwhile, dont forget that apart from 1 billion expended on acquisition of players, they have spent 2.9 billion and 1.2 billion on wages and operating expenses respectively. What else do you want?

The club generated close to £6 billion in that period. The club by itself, without the financial input of the Glazers generated that money on its own. Why are you making it look like the Glazers’ acumen brought that money to the table?

Were United not making money before the Glazers? Old Trafford had the largest club stadium capacity in Britain before the Glazers. United’s match day revenue was the highest in Britain before the Glazers. United also had the highest number of fans in Europe.

The club would have survived and be in a much better shape without the Glazers. If you are paying £707m in interest alone(excluding the debt repayment), you should worry about the debt. That £707m could have brought Neymar and Mbappe to Old Trafford.

Glazernomics is poison.

Illimitable:


No one asked for them. No one wanted them. The club wasn’t in any financial trouble. They just arrived overnight and heaped loads of debt on the club. They don’t deserve more than £200m profit in 2010 considering they didn’t drop a single penny in the purchase of the club.




I should forget about the debt that has sucked £704m on interests alone? Are you alright? Without the debt, the £704m wasted on interest alone could have gone to buy more players or fix the dilapidated stadium that was leaking rain water few seasons ago.



The club generated close to £6 billion in that period. The club by itself, without the financial input of the Glazers generated that money on its own. Why are you making it look like the Glazers’ acumen brought that money to the table?

Were United not making money before the Glazers? Old Trafford had the largest club stadium capacity in Britain before the Glazers. United’s match day revenue was the highest in Britain before the Glazers. United also had the highest number of fans in Europe.

The club would have survived and be in a much better shape without the Glazers. If you are paying £707m in interest alone(excluding the debt repayment), you should worry about the debt. That £707m could have brought Neymar and Mbappe to Old Trafford.

Glazernomics is poison.

Why did the previous owners sell? Why do you think the new owners invest invested? Why did the govt allow the sale? Better stop the emotional stuffs. You are a fan, they are investors, a fan cannot be a rational investor, while an investor cannot be as emotional as a fan. But both of them need to come together to make things successful.

How much do you want to spend on player acquisitions? 2 billion in 10 years? how many clubs have hit the 1 billion mark in player acquisitions in the last 10 years?

nitrogen:

Clubs have different models. City, Real Madrid, Barca wont bring in a lot from player sales. They dont care if you have a net spend of 0$ (re: player sales and acquisitions). They want to continue to make their brands bigger by signing expensive players and make money off them.

While this is true, they compensate it by acquiring world class players and they land big trophies to sweeten the fans.

Real Madrid and Barca will not sign Bebe, Obertan and a crippled Michael Owen to replace a Cristiano Ronaldo. It’s impossible.

So no matter how you shake it, Glazernomics is poison.

nitrogen:

Chelsea on the other hand relies on player sales to fund more than half of player acquisitions. Different clubs with different models.

United’s model is not a model, it’s a money grab. Stop calling it model. What sort of stupid model rewards shitty players with contracts you would give Messi or Ronaldo?

If Aguero was a United player, Woodward would be giving him a 6 year contract this summer to keep him until 37. How’s that a model? What is Phil Jones doing at United? What financial model in the world supports Phil Jones contract in 2019?

nitrogen:

Better calm down and learn how these things work.

You are ridiculously naive in football finance to think the Glazers have any sort of financial model. It’s just a money grab. They have zero knowledge on how football works and this is why the biggest club in the world is now trophyless for the 4th year running.

nitrogen:

Why did the previous owners sell? Why do you think the new owners invest invested? Why did the govt allow the sale? Better stop the emotional stuffs. You are a fan, they are investors, a fan cannot be a rational investor, while an investor cannot be as emotional as a fan. But both of them need to come together to make things successful.

The previous owners sold their shares because of their beef with Alex Ferguson. They fought over the ownership of a racehorse and they wanted out.

British Government allowed the sale because of the taxes they would get from the deal. Everyone older than 5 knows that leveraged buyout does anybody no good - especially a cash generating outfit like Man Utd.

nitrogen:

How much do you want to spend on player acquisitions? 2 billion in 10 years? how many clubs have hit the 1 billion mark in player acquisitions in the last 10 years?

Plenty of clubs have hit 1 billion in player purchases in the last 10 years and United are the least successful amongst those clubs.

Have you been sleeping?

Illimitable:


While this is true, they compensate it by acquiring world class players and they land big trophies to sweeten the fans.

Real Madrid and Barca will not sign Bebe, Obertan and a crippled Michael Owen to replace a Cristiano Ronaldo. It’s impossible.

So no matter how you shake it, Glazernomics is poison.



United’s model is not a model, it’s a money grab. Stop calling it model. What sort of stupid model rewards shitty players with contracts you would give Messi or Ronaldo?

If Aguero was a United player, Woodward would be giving him a 6 year contract this summer to keep him until 37. How’s that a model? What is Phil Jones doing at United? What financial model in the world supports Phil Jones contract in 2019?




You are ridiculously naive in football finance to think the Glazers have any sort of financial model. It’s just a money grab. They have zero knowledge on how football works and this is why the biggest club in the world is now trophyless for the 4th year running.

We are looking at acquisitions in the last 10 years. Stop talking about an era where we had a squad that got to 3 UCL finals in 4 years. That squad did not need a lot of investments.

No, investors don't need to know everything about football, they only need to appoint the right people, spend the right amount, and adopt the right business model for sustainability. I will blame them for not signing the right managers (to be fair though, they brought Mou and LVG), wont fault them for spending 1 billion on players in 10 years, and will even praise them for having Woodie on board to increase revenues significantly.

#OleOUT
#EndOLE
#OleMustGo
#EndOLECluelessness
#SackTheFraud

Illimitable:


The previous owners sold their shares because of their beef with Alex Ferguson. They fought over the ownership of a racehorse and they wanted out.

British Government allowed the sale because of the taxes they would get from the deal. Everyone older than 5 knows that leveraged buyout does anybody no good - especially a cash generating outfit like Man Utd.



Plenty of clubs have hit 1 billion in player purchases in the last 10 years and United are the least successful amongst those clubs.

Have you been sleeping?

Lol, so why are you blaming the Glazers for buying the club. British billionaires chould have bid for the club in 2005 na, why did they not table an offer?

Also, just 4 clubs hitting the 1 billion mark is not a lot. Check Europe, we'll have less than 10 clubs. And between 2010 and 2020, we have had more success than Liverpool and Chelsea.

Illimitable:


A man with 25 major trophies can never be out of demand.

k

nitrogen:

We are looking at acquisitions in the last 10 years. Stop talking about an era where we had a squad that got to 3 UCL finals in 4 years. That squad did not need a lot of investments.

As at then, Scholes, Giggs and many other players were due to be replaced. Ferguson worked wonders to make the team overperform to get 3 UCL finals in 4 years. He lost two out of them though and one would think if we had Ozil or Kroos in the 2011 CL final instead of Giggs/Carrick, the outcome would have been much different.

Like I said, Glazernomics led United to those two painful final defeats. I remember Ferguson used to say there was no value in the market then - and proceeded to sign Obertan and Tosic. Rooney had a bust with SAF asking why United have declined. Roy Keane also had a similar bust in 2005 that led to his exit from the club.

Glazernomics is poison!

nitrogen:

No, investors don't need to know everything about football, they only need to appoint the right people, spend the right amount, and adopt the right business model for sustainability. I will blame them for not signing the right managers (to be fair though, they brought Mou and LVG), wont fault them for spending 1 billion on players in 10 years, and will even praise them for having Woodie on board to increase revenues significantly.

And there lies the problem.

If they know nothing about football, how would they know the right football people to hire. City went all out to get Txiki Begiristain(Barca’s former football director) as their football director while Woodward was pretending to know what the job entails.

You only need to watch Man City’s Amazon documentary to see how that club is built with the sole objective of packing trophies. They have a structure and owners who won’t hesitate to pursue that sole objective no matter what it costs.

That is what any investor should care about. Football fans won’t care if Osama Bin Laden acquires their club as long as they keep bringing in the trophies. All the fans ever wanted is success and continued success. With the Glazers, we get debt and trophy drought.

I repeat, Glazernomics is poison!

Illimitable:


As at then, Scholes, Giggs and many other players were due to be replaced. Ferguson worked wonders to make the team overperform to get 3 UCL finals in 4 years. He lost two out of them though and one would think if we had Ozil or Kroos in the 2011 CL final instead of Giggs/Carrick, the outcome would have been much different.

Like I said, Glazernomics led United to those two painful final defeats. I remember Ferguson used to say there was no value in the market then - and proceeded to sign Obertan and Tosic. Rooney had a bust with SAF asking why United have declined. Roy Keane also had a similar bust in 2005 that led to his exit from the club.

Glazernomics is poison!



And there lies the problem.

If they know nothing about football, how would they know the right football people to hire. City went all out to get Txiki Begiristain(Barca’s former football director) as their football director while Woodward was pretending to know what the job entails.

You only need to watch Man City’s Amazon documentary to see how that club is built with the sole objective of packing trophies. They have a structure and owners who won’t hesitate to pursue that sole objective no matter what it costs.

That is what any investor should care about. Football fans won’t care if Osama Bin Laden acquires their club as long as they keep bringing in the trophies. All the fans ever wanted is success and continued success. With the Glazers, we get debt and trophy drought.

I repeat, Glazernomics is poison!

So, man city owners understand football?

Also, the primary purpose of owning City is to win trophies, making returns is not part of it? I guess fans should own clubs and manage them then.



You are so hilarious.

nitrogen:

Lol, so why are you blaming the Glazers for buying the club. British billionaires chould have bid for the club in 2005 na, why did they not table an offer?

There was no chance for British Billionaires. This was an inside scoop. Malcolm Glazer was already a share holder - I think about 5%. He knew the former owners and they simply told him to get the money and buy their shares.

nitrogen:

Also, just 4 clubs hitting the 1 billion mark is not a lot. Check Europe, we'll have less than 10 clubs. And between 2010 and 2020, we have had more success than Liverpool and Chelsea.

How have you had more success than Chelsea in that period?

Chelsea won the league in 2010, 2015, 2017 and CL in 2012. I won’t even count their Europa cup and Carling nonsense.

United won the league in 2011 and 2013, zero CL.

Chelsea have been more successful. Liverpool aren’t too far behind - they won the league and won one CL.

Meanwhile, the last time United played in a CL final was 10 years ago.

What is there to admire about the Glazers?

nitrogen:


So, man city owners understand football?

Also, the primary purpose of owning City is to win trophies, making returns is not part of it? I guess fans should own clubs and manage them then.



You are so hilarious.

Man City owners are football people. From the top to the bottom. Go and watch City’s All or Nothing on Amazon and see how the club is run from top to bottom, you would want to line up the Glazers against a wall and have them shot.

LostMyZeal:



People seem to forget that we'll be having a versatile player in Grealish. I mean, he can play from anywhere across the front 4 and we could really use that.



Sell Pogba now and get Grealish and Kane in. Grealish will seamlessly solve our long RMF problem and let the starlets who are purported to take that role in the future develop.



Yes, na me talk am!

Grealish has played on the right side of midfield or attack just ONCE in the last 8 years. He is not solving the RMF problem cos he is as left sided as they come.

Mrviktor:


Which ndidi please..

Milinkovic savic is d only Pogba replacement I can think of

I really don't bother about Pogba's replacement tho. It's obvious that we lack a player in the frame of Ndidi. In fact, we have lacked such a player for years now.

If we have someone like Ndidi then we can play two nimber 8's instead of this catastrophic Mc & Fred combo.

Many teams don't have a player like pogba in their squad and they play very well.

If Pogba leaves, the priority can't be to replace him. We have other pressing needs abeg.

Mrviktor:


Which ndidi please..

Milinkovic savic is d only Pogba replacement I can think of

Keep Pogba and Bruno and then sign Ndidi.

Against the bottom 12 clubs, use the inverted triangle in the midfield. Ndidi as the sole DM dovetailing Pogba and Bruno.

Against the top 8 clubs, United should use 2 DMs(one of McFred can partner Ndidi) for security. Ndidi is the best DM in the league by a distance.

Any serious club hoping to catch Man City should be signing him in the summer. He’s only 24, he’s nowhere near his peak yet and he does everything and more than McFred combined.

is it true dat manU will face Jose mourinhos bois in the return leg against Roma?


https://www.nairaland.com/6537621/roma-appoints-jose-mourinho-head