₦airaland Forum

raumdeuter:
When was the last time your MCM coach made a UCL final?

11 years ago.

However, Pep has managed Bayern(Treble winners) and City(bottomless pit of funds) in that 10 year period.

Tunde Disu would have made a final with the opportunities Pep has had.

Oasis007:
Glazers can't be blamed for woeful Signings Bruh. They hire Scouts for the Job, not to overseeing it themselves.

Moyes Era, we spent huge to get Fellaini of all Midfielders. Then peaked Mata who is on decline already.

LvG Era, we wasted Money on Di Maria and Depay. Signed a Weakling as a DF and so on,

Under Mou, Lukaku was bought with huge Sum, record was broken to get Pogba, Sanchez happened and so on.

So are we really gonna blame all these on Glazers? I am not interested in Discourse you're having with nitrogen, but we should try to be objective and argue our Points beyond emotional point of view.

Do you know the difference between the Glazers and other club owners? They don’t dally when making decisions.

Other owners make changes immediately if they buy players and the signing didn’t work.

What happened to Nolito and Claudio Bravo after Pep signed them and they failed him? They were instantly replaced. Nolito was sold back to Spain after one season.

No media machine was pressing Pep to develop him or give him time. It’s only at United that we expect managers to develop players at this level. This is Man Utd - not a feeder club whose sole aim is to bring players through.

Pep inherited Hart who was good enough. Pep hated him on sight(without having played for Pep) cos he wasn’t good with his feet.

Pep had him replaced with Bravo. Bravo flopped and Pep got Ederson immediately. If this was United, there would have been riots with how Pep treated their club legend(Hart).

Good leaders are decisive. They make decisions and when they are wrong, they make changes quickly and move on. Poor leaders make poor decisions and dwell on that decision till everything falls to ruin.

Expert17:
Get Maguire a fast CB partner and a sensible DM, he is good to go.

Maguire of Leicester was only behind Van Dijk when it comes to best CB in EPL.

Maguire of Leicester wasn’t even better than Johnny Evans.

So Pep made a champions league final after 10 years with over £1 billion spent.

He’s indeed the worst manager in the world(without money).

Expert17:
Nope.

Maguire of Liecester was better thann Diaz of Benfica.

Lindelof of Benfica was better than AKE of Bournemouth.

Bailly of Villareal was better than Stones of Everton.

Maguire of Leicester was shit
Lindelof of Benfica was shit.

These are teams with low blocks and that’s where Maguire’s strength lies. If there’s no space for his opponents to run behind, Maguire looks decent.

As soon as you put him in teams that must attack and keep a high line, Maguire is useless. He has no pace and his positional sense is schoolboy at best.

Dias was highly rated at Benfica. Mourinho chased him like hell to sign for Spurs but Levy ran from the transfer fees and signed Rodon instead. Everyone knew Maguire would fail at United cos he lacks the pace to play in teams that want to dominate opponents.

Oasis007:
Well, you're not far from Truth. I blame it on the Scouts and Ed, not Glazers sha.

Ed Woodward and the Glazers are the same entity. It’s difficult to blame one and absolve the other.

Oasis007:
Diaz is above £80m we paid for Maguire. Make una stop throwing Blame anyhow. Diaz cost City £54m plus Otamendi.

Also, it's a Gamble which is paying off. Where is Laporte? He can't even bench Stones again. Make una take am easy. Maguire is never a bad Signing.

All their CBs are better than the farmer CBs at United.

Dias cost City £54m + Otamendi?

Dias could have cost United £30m + Smalling.

But when you have nonces as the decision makers at United, they would always get most things wrong.

nitrogen:
Chai, City in UCL final. Geezzzzz!

When we say beat PSG when it matters, they won’t hear word. We beat PSG, beating PSG is bigger than Europa League, bla bla bla....

Ole can only win games that don’t matter.

Beat PSG in 2019 only to go and lose to Barca

Beat PSG in 2020 only to go and lose to Basaksehir.

Olesexuals see progress though.

Ole dropped £80m on Maguire when Ruben Dias was available at a cheaper rate.

Ole is a disgrace.

Look at Di Maria.

Pochettino and Ole are born losers.

Pochettino is a terrible manager.

I hope he gets sacked in the summer. PSG are much better than the dross they have served in both legs.

As soon as they get into the final third, they become clueless. Di Maria either plays a hospital pass or Neymar tries to dribble 7 players at a time.

Roma shares has surged 21% after announcing Mourinho.

PE teacher could never.

It was 12% surge earlier now its hovering 21%

Wow!

olabode89:
From a business perspective the propaganda is BS. People need to understand that having debt as a business is not really bad provided there is no cash flow problem/shortage of cash for taking care of current liabilities and opex.

Stop comparing United debt to the ordinary debt people have with mortgage, car notes, car financing or mobile phone, etc. Those are straight forward debts.

The United debt is much more complex than everyone’s debt. They took £525m in loans and heaped it on the club to repay in 2005.

Since then, United have paid £704m in interest and £244m debt repayments. One would think the loan repayments debt would have reduced drastically by now but it has remained around £500m in the last few years.

How can you say this kind of debt isn’t bad?

olabode89:
The club traditionally do not recoup huge amounts from player sales because of out strategy of buying experienced players over 25, blooding academy prospects and taking a risk on wild card young players that are usually not up to par. This is unlike Chelsea that is operating a massive loan system that generates a good chunk of income from player sales.

You have conveniently forgotten the club traditionally didn’t have debts too and the takeover meant things ought to have changed concerning player sales. One would expect the owners to leverage on player sales to generate more funds to invest in players but like I said, nobody in that board room has any football sense.

olabode89:
To me the only issue the Glazer had was not employing a proper football man to take care of player acquisition and contracts negotiation, and these have been corrected some months ago.

The only issue the Glazers had was even nursing the idea to own Man Utd. They should have left the club alone. It’s been 4 years without a trophy(the longest trophyless run at the club in over 30 years).

The debt hasn’t gone away, The Glazers have lowered the broadcasting income due to the lack of success on the pitch by hiring the idiotic PE teacher.

The growth in broadcasting income at Man Utd is now lower than that of Chelsea, City, Liverpool and Spurs. That is a big indictment on The Glazers. They have done far more harm than good.

Glazernomics is poison.

olabode89:
Leicester do not have to sell and they will ask for at least £50M.

Which is better than the £100m West Ham is asking for Declan Rice.

Ndidi will make that midfield 3 times better.

Fred is an expert in interception only.
Scott is an expert in tackling only.
Ndidi is an expert at both tackles/interceptions.

I can even stick my neck out and say Ndidi is better than McFred combined. However, Woodward will most likely sign Declan Rice at a much higher fee to appease the fans.

Meanwhile, Ndidi is 10 times better than Declan Rice.

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.

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.

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:
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!

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?

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:
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.

JayKayMaybachz:
Who dhey cut soap for this man nii

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

raumdeuter:
The Glazers did not take over using a gun, they negotiated fairly and were sold the club

The Glazers have spent a lot of money on the club too, They have bought you the most expensive defender, midfielder and striker in the league

I saw among the banners, some fans clamouring for a 50+1 model the same model many fans have laughed at Bundesliga for. When you get 50+1 and no investor are comng, will you be okay with losing the bragging rights of the most competitive league and trophies in Europe cos without those investors you wont be better than other leagues

Who is this football illiterate typing nonsense?

The Glazers have not spent a single penny on Man Utd. Man Utd was a debt free club in 2005 generating around £400m in revenue every season.

Man Utd was big enough to pay its overheads until the Glazers heaped a hefty debt on the club which has cost the club close to £2 billion. Imagine if that amount was spent on players instead of interests and repayments?

The Glazers don’t spend a dime on United, they take money from the club in dividends instead. This whole notion that the Glazers are some savior that rescued a dying club in 2005 needs to be put to bed.

nitrogen:
Simple! Stop whining and buy the club.

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.

Oasis007:


Solskjær: "One, you fight to win the Premier League, that is the bread and butter. That is the dream, that is what everyone wants but it is almost like another trophy: second, third or fourth because the Champions League is such a massive tournament to be in."

This man is a disgrace.

Expert17:
Europa league is now considered as a major trophy by OleInners

Wonderful

Until he loses in the next round and Olesexuals twist the narrative that Ole never took the competition serious or it’s not a competition United should be playing or winning.

Just watch.

Android17:
Mourinho was supposed to succeed in England according to high IQ people means that he should run through the PL and deliver the title by January?.

Idiocy isn’t tolerated by me.

You said he was supposed to succeed in England as there were huge expectations for him to win.

He’s a brilliant manager
He inherited a brilliant team
He bought brilliant players.

What could be wrong? Except for the small matter that he wasn’t even the favorite that year.

If you don’t get the fück out of my sight with your room temperature IQ.

This weapon is actually equating an away game at Newcastle(300 miles away from home) at the end of the season to the first game of the season at home against United.

Android17:
A manager can manipulate his TEAM into a siege mentality by accusing the referees of not treating his players favorably. For e.g he accused the referees of being too light on SAF. That way, his players play with that mentality and try to win to prove they won regardless of opposition by the referees. You are calling me names? lol

Manager has become a conjurer to hypnotize his players and create a siege mentality. Media darlings would leave their status and join moaners about referees or the FA?

You have the intelligence of a dead battery. How does this make sense to you if you have any brain cells in your head?

You are certainly a special child.