I was offended by your use of those two disparate terms in conjunction with each other.Football guy said:I Hart Man City said:Football guy said:Lol , this is exactly what i hoped to see in response here , but i am not a ****/dick like you who lacks sense to see the truth . i don't see how you can disagree on their sucess in commercial terms
I will die before i support them , trust me on that
Are you sure about that? You're quite offensive with practically no provocation.
I don't get provoked by someone calling me names , but someone calling me a united fan does provoke me
JM Mcr said:If your barometer of good owners is having the ability to drive up commercial revenues then I agree, on the face of it the Glazers could have been good for the club.Football guy said:Either way , united's future is definitely better financially , once they offload the debt or bring it down , they will easily flex their muscles and still remain in profit with their huge commercial income , i am actually in awe of their commercial income , glazers are one of the best business guys around to be true , thats one branch where we need to look at , we need to make those small deals with companies across the globe which make a difference in the financial statement , so glazers not the worst thing that happened to themCity Raider said:don't we need this to succeed?
surely an unsuccessful offer leads us a step nearer to the glazers relinquishing ownership of the club?
Having said that, before labelling them as "not the worst thing to happen to Utd" we need to remember they turned a previously debt free club into one saddled with crippling, possibly even fatal, levels of debt (they still have a long long way to go to pull off the juggling act of getting the club debt free again, if they're ever going to do so), have seen well in excess of £300m net (taking account of the tax and dividends that a debt free Utd would presumably have paid out anyway) frittered away on servicing "their" debt, plus additional fees paid to themselves.
Glazer apologists also point to the continued on-field success Utd have enjoyed since the takeover, as some sort of vindication for their ownership model. I'm not sure how much of the on-field success is as a result of the Glazers tho, or to look from another angle I'm sure a debt free Utd, under Ferguson, would have won at least as much over that period.
The real crux of it tho has to be what impact they have had on the club's support. Since the takeover they have alienated or forced out huge numbers of Utd's traditional support through their aggressive marketing of the club and incessant price rises, all to help pay for THEIR leveraged buyout. Speaking personally I was eventually priced out after over 30 years of watching matches at Old Trafford, I doubt my children will ever get to see a home game whilst the gimps are still in charge (unless they can afford it from their own spends cos Daddy certainly won't be paying anymore), many of my friends have reluctantly given up as well. The Glazers' short sighted policies have come close (if not already done) to losing one generation of match going mancunians to Utd, and denying the next generation of match going mancunians the opportunity to even start going to matches. One hell of a legacy so, sorry mate but personally I do think they're the worst thing that's ever happened to Utd. I can see tho why some none match going Utd fans, and most opposition fans, may think they're pretty good owners
Football guy said:JM Mcr said:If your barometer of good owners is having the ability to drive up commercial revenues then I agree, on the face of it the Glazers could have been good for the club.Football guy said:Either way , united's future is definitely better financially , once they offload the debt or bring it down , they will easily flex their muscles and still remain in profit with their huge commercial income , i am actually in awe of their commercial income , glazers are one of the best business guys around to be true , thats one branch where we need to look at , we need to make those small deals with companies across the globe which make a difference in the financial statement , so glazers not the worst thing that happened to them
Having said that, before labelling them as "not the worst thing to happen to Utd" we need to remember they turned a previously debt free club into one saddled with crippling, possibly even fatal, levels of debt (they still have a long long way to go to pull off the juggling act of getting the club debt free again, if they're ever going to do so), have seen well in excess of £300m net (taking account of the tax and dividends that a debt free Utd would presumably have paid out anyway) frittered away on servicing "their" debt, plus additional fees paid to themselves.
Glazer apologists also point to the continued on-field success Utd have enjoyed since the takeover, as some sort of vindication for their ownership model. I'm not sure how much of the on-field success is as a result of the Glazers tho, or to look from another angle I'm sure a debt free Utd, under Ferguson, would have won at least as much over that period.
The real crux of it tho has to be what impact they have had on the club's support. Since the takeover they have alienated or forced out huge numbers of Utd's traditional support through their aggressive marketing of the club and incessant price rises, all to help pay for THEIR leveraged buyout. Speaking personally I was eventually priced out after over 30 years of watching matches at Old Trafford, I doubt my children will ever get to see a home game whilst the gimps are still in charge (unless they can afford it from their own spends cos Daddy certainly won't be paying anymore), many of my friends have reluctantly given up as well. The Glazers' short sighted policies have come close (if not already done) to losing one generation of match going mancunians to Utd, and denying the next generation of match going mancunians the opportunity to even start going to matches. One hell of a legacy so, sorry mate but personally I do think they're the worst thing that's ever happened to Utd. I can see tho why some none match going Utd fans, and most opposition fans, may think they're pretty good owners
what i was trying to focus on was the commercial impact which glazers had on the club which was in response to the post made by someone above me , which i think is pretty amazing and a model to follow for everyone ,
i don't think i said glazers are the best owners but i said they are hell of businessmen who have done what a leveareged buyout requires , build the commercial departement which will definitely help united in the future so its hard overall to judge how bad in the long run glazers have been
sweynforkbeard said:Hi@PhilJones just a quick question. United signed you but City signed Kun Aguero....how do you think it feels to be City?
I enjoyed reading that, cheers pal.gordondaviesmoustache said:I suppose it depends what your idea of a accomplished businessman is.
If you admire people that see a business as a means of exploiting an asset with commercial gain as not only the only objective, but the sole r'aison d'etre for the enterprise then I guess you could venerate them. If you admire people who believe that a business is just a collection of assets and liabilities which can be bought and sold at will to gain the maximum possible return, and that any asset has its price including your own soul, then there is a great deal to praise them for.
As I have previously posted Big Malc is a canny fucker and has balls of steel, but to me a good businessman is someone who innovates and creates, not squeezes till the pips squeek. As I said earlier the Glazers are the unacceptable, unpleasant face of capitalism. You do a great disservice to truly great businessmen when you try and compare these parasites, albeit clever ones, with people who have strived to improve the human condition by way of their entrepreneurial flair and creativity.
JM Mcr said:If your barometer of good owners is having the ability to drive up commercial revenues then I agree, on the face of it the Glazers could have been good for the club.Football guy said:Either way , united's future is definitely better financially , once they offload the debt or bring it down , they will easily flex their muscles and still remain in profit with their huge commercial income , i am actually in awe of their commercial income , glazers are one of the best business guys around to be true , thats one branch where we need to look at , we need to make those small deals with companies across the globe which make a difference in the financial statement , so glazers not the worst thing that happened to themCity Raider said:don't we need this to succeed?
surely an unsuccessful offer leads us a step nearer to the glazers relinquishing ownership of the club?
Having said that, before labelling them as "not the worst thing to happen to Utd" we need to remember they turned a previously debt free club into one saddled with crippling, possibly even fatal, levels of debt (they still have a long long way to go to pull off the juggling act of getting the club debt free again, if they're ever going to do so), have seen well in excess of £300m net (taking account of the tax and dividends that a debt free Utd would presumably have paid out anyway) frittered away on servicing "their" debt, plus additional fees paid to themselves.
Glazer apologists also point to the continued on-field success Utd have enjoyed since the takeover, as some sort of vindication for their ownership model. I'm not sure how much of the on-field success is as a result of the Glazers tho, or to look from another angle I'm sure a debt free Utd, under Ferguson, would have won at least as much over that period.
The real crux of it tho has to be what impact they have had on the club's support. Since the takeover they have alienated or forced out huge numbers of Utd's traditional support through their aggressive marketing of the club and incessant price rises, all to help pay for THEIR leveraged buyout. Speaking personally I was eventually priced out after over 30 years of watching matches at Old Trafford, I doubt my children will ever get to see a home game whilst the gimps are still in charge (unless they can afford it from their own spends cos Daddy certainly won't be paying anymore), many of my friends have reluctantly given up as well. The Glazers' short sighted policies have come close (if not already done) to losing one generation of match going mancunians to Utd, and denying the next generation of match going mancunians the opportunity to even start going to matches. One hell of a legacy so, sorry mate but personally I do think they're the worst thing that's ever happened to Utd. I can see tho why some none match going Utd fans, and most opposition fans, may think they're pretty good owners
Back on that fucking grammar pagegordondaviesmoustache said:I was offended by your use of those two disparate terms in conjunction with each other.Football guy said:I Hart Man City said:Are you sure about that? You're quite offensive with practically no provocation.
I don't get provoked by someone calling me names , but someone calling me a united fan does provoke me
A dick is someone who is a bit of a fool, a joke figure. Someone who is harmless but who you have little or no respect for.
A **** is someone who you have complete contempt for. Someone who you believe to be a worthless human being and has no redeeming features.
Phil Jones is a dick. Alex Ferguson is a ****.
Football guy said:Rag's new shirt deal will earn them £50m , yes , £50m a season , how can this deal pass FFP? UEFA has to take some action there while the truth is they can't do anything
This is £10m more than our whole etihad deal , i feel sick