United thread 2020/21

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

United have major structural problems throughout the club. It is a basket case really. The coaching operation is poor with most players going backwards, they have no continuity in the management team, and the infrastructure is crumbling. In many ways they resemble City in 1981 under Swales.
They still have a huge global fanbase and high revenues but, as a club, they are on the precipice. Even the biggest clubs can go into major decline. Look at AC Milan for example.
The longer the Glazers stay in charge the better as far as I am concerned. That said I believe the Glazers will definitely sell up as soon as they can. They need the money because the rest of their business operation is on its knees. Even if United do get taken over it will take them 10 years to build an infrastructure as good as City or even Chelsea.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, the Glazers might sell up tomorrow if the right offer arrives, but if one part of your business empire is providing the financial support to keep the rest of your business empire from collapsing then it wouldn’t be usual to sell that part off.

That’s my take on it and I like it that way because, to my mind, it keeps the Glazers walking that tightrope between the minimum practical investment to keep the club ticking over and the maximum possible dividends to keep the rest of their empire afloat.

What’s often overlooked is that they’ve already diluted their holding by selling a portion of the business as shares (while protecting their control by making them non-voting shares).
From an ownership perspective, thats actually the equivalent of taking on a further loan, as those non-voting shareholders now own a portion of the business (and get their portion of the business value if it’s sold) and they get their annual dividends in the same way that the banks get the interest on their loans.

What tickles me is that their selling a part of their holding to raise funds, albeit without relinquishing control, is little different in outcome to taking a further bank loan.
But the united supporters and the media who rage against the clubs debt don’t recognise it for what is in effect a form of debt to be paid going forward, though to varied institutions and individuals, not a bank.
This further ties the Glazers to the club because it diminishes their take from any sale.

 

[Vienna_70]

They protested when Glazer first went there. But then won three league titles in a row and a CL. The protests stopped.

Then City were taken over in 2008-09 and Chelsea ended that run of title wins in 2009-10, and the protests started again. But then United won the league again and the protests stopped.

Then City and Liverpool had a few years winning everything while United have gone four years winning absolutely nothing. But United were top at New Year and started getting giddy as fuck, only to see City go on a huge winning run on the way to winning the EFL Cup and the Prem again, plus getting to a CL final… low and behold they’ve seen their arses and the protests have started again.

I’ll bet your bollocks to a barn dance that if they win title next season (hypothetical situation, of course!) these protests will end.

Littlewoods winning everything?

I must have missed that bit.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

City’s director of football has the CEO of every major global club on speed dial.
United have appointed John Murtough, a glorified school coach who has half the punters from The Vic in Burnage on speed dial. Levels

Its a bizarre appointment by United. Murthough appears to have no experience at all which would make him suitable for that job. It really is a strange place. They also have Darren Fletcher as technical director. There is nothing in his tenure at United that suggests he is some sort of tactical genius. United have turned into a parody football club.

 

[Vienna_70]

The only players going to utd are after the money simple.

A young player going or at utd must look at the paperboy and think is paperboy going to improve my game ?

If i had a son who was that good to play in the premiership, i would want my lad at City ( obviously ) or say the leeds manager , someone who i thought would bring my son on.
Even the ex rags players have sons at the City academy ( or use to ). Shouldnt that be telling all the rag fans all they need to know, ex players wont seen their kids to utd lol.

But it's not just the first 11 it seems the ladies team is treated poorly, the statium roof leaks, have they sorted out the rodent problem yet ? I read a year or so ago that some office computers are covered over when a match is on because away end toilets leak onto them !. Guessing not piss but water ;)

Long may it continue :)

No, he takes the penalties for them.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I’m not saying you’re wrong, the Glazers might sell up tomorrow if the right offer arrives, but if one part of your business empire is providing the financial support to keep the rest of your business empire from collapsing then it wouldn’t be usual to sell that part off.

That’s my take on it and I like it that way because, to my mind, it keeps the Glazers walking that tightrope between the minimum practical investment to keep the club ticking over and the maximum possible dividends to keep the rest of their empire afloat.

What’s often overlooked is that they’ve already diluted their holding by selling a portion of the business as shares (while protecting their control by making them non-voting shares).
From an ownership perspective, thats actually the equivalent of taking on a further loan, as those non-voting shareholders now own a portion of the business (and get their portion of the business value if it’s sold) and they get their annual dividends in the same way that the banks get the interest on their loans.

What tickles me is that their selling a part of their holding to raise funds, albeit without relinquishing control, is little different in outcome to taking a further bank loan.
But the united supporters and the media who rage against the clubs debt don’t recognise it for what is in effect a form of debt to be paid going forward, though to varied institutions and individuals, not a bank.
This further ties the Glazers to the club because it diminishes their take from any sale.

I broadly agree with you. But what I suspect is that things have now reached a tipping point with the Glazers that makes it increasingly difficult for them to meet their debt payments.
They have just won the Super Bowl with Tampa Bay but, like all NFL clubs, they are taking a huge hit from Covid.
They are sitting on a large number of virtually worthless retail sites which they bought with borrowing and the debt at United is at least £700m, excluding long-term payments on transfers and any infrastructure spend.
I also heard from someone well placed to know that the Glazers were touting United around for investors before last Christmas and there are still persistent rumours about Saudi or Chinese investors. Now they have lost the chance of a bale-out from the Super League. They have got nowhere to go.

 

[Blootoof]

I’m not saying you’re wrong, the Glazers might sell up tomorrow if the right offer arrives, but if one part of your business empire is providing the financial support to keep the rest of your business empire from collapsing then it wouldn’t be usual to sell that part off.

That’s my take on it and I like it that way because, to my mind, it keeps the Glazers walking that tightrope between the minimum practical investment to keep the club ticking over and the maximum possible dividends to keep the rest of their empire afloat.

What’s often overlooked is that they’ve already diluted their holding by selling a portion of the business as shares (while protecting their control by making them non-voting shares).
From an ownership perspective, thats actually the equivalent of taking on a further loan, as those non-voting shareholders now own a portion of the business (and get their portion of the business value if it’s sold) and they get their annual dividends in the same way that the banks get the interest on their loans.

What tickles me is that their selling a part of their holding to raise funds, albeit without relinquishing control, is little different in outcome to taking a further bank loan.
But the united supporters and the media who rage against the clubs debt don’t recognise it for what is in effect a form of debt to be paid going forward, though to varied institutions and individuals, not a bank.
This further ties the Glazers to the club because it diminishes their take from any sale.

The only people who could buy that club with the money involved would be the Saudis, but why would they? Surely a club like Newcastle makes more sense or even the likes of your Forests/ Sheff Weds? To be able to build a club back up would be more appetizing to this lot I'd imagine with a lot less cost/ baggage. United are still top'ish, ie not much glory to be made.
The thing with united fans they honestly think they've hit rock bottom. Fuckin 2nd in the league with a European final and they're whinging. The irony also is that the very thing they brag about(their worth)is what's stopping potential buyers. I hope they fuckin rot.

 

[LongsightM13]

 

[LongsightM13]

 

[Vienna_70]

United fans need to be careful about wanting the Glazers out.

A billion pounds of investment in 8 years is some commitment , would different owners do likewise with the cost of buying the club on top?

The biggest mistake the Glazers have made was employing Ed as CEO.

It really makes you appreciate our execs even more, high quality operators at the top of their game, investing the owners money wisely and sensibly, and the results and titles say everything.

Actually, for several years now, they have been investing the club’s OWN money sensibly.

 

[Keeper!]

Actually, for several years now, they have been investing the club’s OWN money sensibly.

Most owners do, we are one of the lucky ones.