Sprout Spreghorst

1y

Key difference being Abramovich and Marinakis put their money into the club rather than the Glazers spending club revenue and taking dividends out of the club

Surely controlling the money is far more impactful than day to day micromanaging

DEL_DVYg

1y

Yeah we’ve failed to replace both David gill and SAF. Hopefully berrada can get closer to Gill level. Jury very much out on that and may be an impossible job under ratcliffe.

KingOfPop

1y

The problem is the day SAF/Gill retired. It's clear as day there were no succession plans in place & those who made the replacement hiring decisions were clearly incapable of doing so.

So I guess the question is, who's responsible for that? Then the issue snowballs, because other things happen like the stadium going from being fairly regularly updated to nothing, Carrington as well - both left to essentially rot.

The Athletic reported the other day The Glazers were very involved at one point - even wives/husbands were attending board meetings.

You could get away with terrible owners because SAF/Gill were so good it almost didn't matter for the time they were still around. Cracks were starting to appear though by 2013 - aging squad etc.

be2ye

1y

Yeah, so basically the incompetent Glazers didn’t have any meaningful impact on the success of United aside from greenlighting an already well oiled machine.

DwindlingSun

1y

Our commercial success from when they took over was unprecedented.

DwindlingSun

1y

They were slow to recognise that football had evolved towards stripping autonomy from the manager. Sir Alex and Wenger were the last out and out managers this league has had.

Who is responsible is them yes. But its also pretty difficult I imagine to lose your chief exec + manager and then say 'hey lets hire a sporting director, director of football, whatever the f*** Darren Fletcher is, etc'. Naturally they just thought well lets hire another manager and another chief exc. The model worked for a decade, why change.

Then Moyes f***ed it and they thought well Moyes was inexperienced, what about LVG. Then LVG was a bad fit even philosophically, so Mourinho. Well, he self-destructed, and so on.

I think if someone asked Sir Alex, do you think cracks were starting to appear in 2013, he would say f*** no.

Also, on a point in your other comment, David Gill was a finance man first too lest we forget.

Again, they just obviously thought (and fairly enough imo) that they could replicate what had been before, not realising (because they don't have hindsight) that they had experienced a once in a lifetime cosmic miracle.

be2ye

1y

It’s hard to comprehend “commercial success” while seeing the utter financial disarray they left the club in

But i get what you are trying to say

DwindlingSun

1y

Praise financial doping, ok then.

I would have taken 'controlling the money' to mean building a self-sustaining business model. But I sense we have different definitions.

KingOfPop

1y

Controlling the money is anything but dumping a massive debt and taking dividends I’d say lol

DwindlingSun

1y

Never defaulted on our debt or needed bailout.

We're run as a business essentially (unlike the financial dopers). We have a shareholder model. Dividends is very standard of that.

DwindlingSun

1y

Our commercial success from when they took over was unprecedented.

DwindlingSun

1y

Praise financial doping, ok then.

I would have taken 'controlling the money' to mean building a self-sustaining business model. But I sense we have different definitions.

DwindlingSun

1y

Never defaulted on our debt or needed bailout.

We're run as a business essentially (unlike the financial dopers). We have a shareholder model. Dividends is very standard of that.

DwindlingSun

1y

Never defaulted on our debt or needed bailout.

We're run as a business essentially (unlike the financial dopers). We have a shareholder model. Dividends is very standard of that.

DwindlingSun

1y

We were the first club (in football worldwide) to basically build itself into a brand. Clubs used to just do one sponsor per thing. We started doing multiple sponsors per thing. Not just one noodle sponsor, we had 6. One in Asia, one in Europe, etc. The Chevrolet deal was massive. Record deal with Adidas. Global offices.

Every other club has copied the model we pioneered basically.

this is not an alt

1y

True, but can our model compete with oil sheiks with unlimited amount of cash available in the long term? I don’t think so.

PSR should’ve been there to solve this but the way City gets away with breaking every rule in the book doesn’t instill a lot of trust.

DwindlingSun

1y

Unlimited money is not a guarantee of on-field success. It's also not a guarantee of commercial success. You become a slave to one grubby fellas laundry.

Club: 'oh lord Abramovich/Boehly/Marinakis/insert ad infinitum, please give me another cash injection '

Grubby fella: 'okay, but I want to step onto the pitch and I also want to pick the tactics next week and I don't like that player because his hair is too pointy so sell him'

PSR is obviously far from perfect but it's not going to go anywhere. Our model is more than competitive long term (obviously on the precondition that we can actually become a winning club again before we all turn 90 and die). And that's especially in the event that PSR does get more stringent, which so far it is.

Sprout Spreghorst

1y

Name one other club who pays quarterly dividends

Sprout Spreghorst

1y

Huge precondition there as we’ve never seen our club actually rebuild a winning squad under 20 years Glazer ownership

KingOfPop

1y

My guy not defaulting on the debt isn’t a flex - the debt shouldn’t f***ing exist 😂😂