USA Consortium (Or somebody else?)

[davidatpreston]

From the article you've linked: "Already the most successful club of the Premier League era, United have won more silverware in the decade since the Glazer takeover than the 10 years before.

 

They have also claimed more trophies in the past decade than any other English club."

 

 

I don't wish to be rude, but I have to say I think you are being seriously and deliberately awkward, and pedantic -

 

Before the Glaziers 6 league titles, after 5

One champions league win before and 1 after

 

3 f a Cup wins before the Glaziers against none, but 3 league cup wins after. Most people value the FA Cup a little more.

 

But - WOW - 5 community shield wins under the yanks against 3 before - BIG DEAL OR WHAT ?

 

So the 'more success' is actually 2 more chairity, sorry community shield wins against one LESS Premiership title. Hmmmmm............ need I say more ?

 

 

I notice you didn't even mention the zero pre-takeover debt United had but its your choice if you think 2 more Community shield wins (but one less Premiership title) outweigh taking on £387 million of debt - you are entitled to set your own priorities.

 

From the article again -

 

United had been debt-free until 2005. That all changed when the Glazers took over.

 

Many fans argued they were effectively gaining control with the club's own cash. That belief prompted waves of protests, which continue in some form today.

 

Even the club's own directors went public with their dismay at the time of the £790m takeover bid, claiming it was "too aggressive" and "potentially damaging".

 

As I said, I'm no expert on United, and I don't think you are either, but there is a huge percentage of their fan base that wishes the Glaziers had kept well away from the club and a proper United fan below says in the article-

 

Protest - 'values eroded for personal profit'

 

"I firmly believe that takeover was bad news for the football club - and still is," says Andy Walsh, general manager of FC United, the club set up in 2005 by disaffected United fans in protest at the Glazer family's debt-burdening ownership of United.

 

 

 

Manchester United fans protest against the Glazers at Old Trafford

 

United fans were vociferous in their protests against the Glazers at the height of the club's debt in 2010

 

"Yes, there has been success on the field. But Manchester United has been reduced by the Glazers's involvement.

 

"It has caused disruption amongst the support and the whole attitude of the club has changed in the approach they make to the game and their commitment to Manchester.

 

"The values Manchester United was built on, through the 1930s, 40s and 50s, have been eroded for profit, the personal profit of the Glazer family."

 

The protests may have been largely silenced but public portrayal of the Glazers remains overwhelmingly negative.

 

[Jacko51]

I wasn't being deliberately awkward or pedantic. I was simply reinforcing what I had said originally - Man U have been hugely successful on the pitch under the Glazers. That is all the vast majority of fans are bothered about - how many fans have they lost as a result of the Glazers takeover - and judging from many posters on here who criticise any mention of the financial situation at Vale, it is all the majority of fans here care about.

 

Also, whatever you feel about the nature of the leveraged buyout of the club initially by the Glazers, the fact is that the aritcle you link above shows that the value of the club has increased enormously since the takeover, the turnover has increased dramatically, the commercial income has almost tripled and they are about to embark on a deal with Adidas which blows all their competitors out of the water. Also, the orignal debt incurred as a result of the takeover has now been considerably reduced.

 

When V2001 bought Vale they did so with a huge amount of debt. During their tenure that debt never reduced, indeed it more than doubled, and results on the pitch collapsed at the same time with relegation. All the shareholders were shafted and lost their money. Whatever you think about the business practices of the Glazers, I'm not aware that any fans have lost money like that and I can't see that the club is worse off now. The figures you post show that the club had a net value of £790m (value minus debt) prior to the takeover. By the same basis it now has a value of £1.6 billion plus.

 

I'm not trying to be pedantic or awkward, and I don't want to get into a long drawn out argument with you. I'm just saying it as I see it and under the Glazers United have been successful both on and off the pitch.

[bookworm]

ah but just think jacko where we could have been with hank peter and perry backed by harlequins money, bratty did say that they were the best sponsers the club ever had.

[For Us All]

ah but just think jacko where we could have been with hank peter and perry backed by harlequins money, bratty did say that they were the best sponsers the club ever had.

 

"They are people you can trust"? 💰

[Phil]

I am not an expert on Manchester United, but a number of friends who are proper United fans who go to games are not pleased with the Glaziers efforts, and the BBC article below makes your rather strong opinion more open to debate than you might think-

 

 

Particularly notable is that the trophy count is roughly the same 10 years before and 10 years after the Glaziers, but crucially UNITED HAD NO DEBTS JUST BEFORE THE GLAZIERS TOOK OVER AND NEVER HAD ANY AT ANY TIME BEFORE. Americans bring Deakin and Miller-styl;e business practices, allegedly questionable accounting and alleged lies, manipulation and dubious practices. No thanks.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32615111

 

 

At the very least, the jury is out - and you cant argue that playing wise they are not the force they have been for the last 20 years this season and haven't really been for 2 years or more.

 

I think the last two years of 'failure' revolve around the departure of Alex Ferguson and the failure to replace him with the right man. If Mourinho comes in, the trophy haul will be back on.

[butt lane vale fan]

All seems very quiet on this.

Surely if there was no deal and Smurf was doing as he said and staying there would of been an announcement by now.

[davidatpreston]

I think the last two years of 'failure' revolve around the departure of Alex Ferguson and the failure to replace him with the right man. If Mourinho comes in, the trophy haul will be back on.

 

You may be right, but nothing and nobody has got Liverpool winning again after their dominance in the 1980s and it is much harder now with new competition like Manchester City and soon others, let alone wild card success from brilliant upstarts like Leicester (Love em!).

 

Mourinho could easily be hated at United and fail miserably, Northern character is very different to London sensibility.

[davidatpreston]

I wasn't being deliberately awkward or pedantic. I was simply reinforcing what I had said originally - Man U have been hugely successful on the pitch under the Glazers. That is all the vast majority of fans are bothered about - how many fans have they lost as a result of the Glazers takeover - and judging from many posters on here who criticise any mention of the financial situation at Vale, it is all the majority of fans here care about.

 

Also, whatever you feel about the nature of the leveraged buyout of the club initially by the Glazers, the fact is that the aritcle you link above shows that the value of the club has increased enormously since the takeover, the turnover has increased dramatically, the commercial income has almost tripled and they are about to embark on a deal with Adidas which blows all their competitors out of the water. Also, the orignal debt incurred as a result of the takeover has now been considerably reduced.

When V2001 bought Vale they did so with a huge amount of debt. During their tenure that debt never reduced, indeed it more than doubled, and results on the pitch collapsed at the same time with relegation. All the shareholders were shafted and lost their money. Whatever you think about the business practices of the Glazers, I'm not aware that any fans have lost money like that and I can't see that the club is worse off now. The figures you post show that the club had a net value of £790m (value minus debt) prior to the takeover. By the same basis it now has a value of £1.6 billion plus.

 

I'm not trying to be pedantic or awkward, and I don't want to get into a long drawn out argument with you. I'm just saying it as I see it and under the Glazers United have been successful both on and off the pitch.

 

I'll not keep it ongoing much more, as we will have to agree to disagree on this one I think. It is clear from the number of titles etc. that the 10 years before and the 10 years after the Glaziers takeover had almost exactly the same number of trophies - and I think virtually any half-decent ownership with United at the point of takeover with Sir AF would have probably got a similar result.

 

But the text and graph in the BBC article shows NO DEBT before the Glaziers, and just because they have reduced it from a hugely obscene figure to a merely massive one, does not make them white knights. United owe hundreds of millions they did not owe before, the Glaziers have allegedly pocketed God knows how much.

 

Its rather like a teetotal person starting drinking, becoming alcoholic, getting to 3 bottles of whisly a day then claiming credit for reducing it to a bottle and a half each day.

 

I don't think any comparison with Vale will help, its an entirely different scenario and scale of funds, and I will just say that whatever else they are, at least the Glaziers are competent alleged financial adjusters..ooops sorry businessmen, whilst Deakin and Miller were no use to themselves, Vale or anyone else.

Anyway, I strongly hope we fo not get any similar American ownership of the Glazier kind, football is not a stock market game at Vale's level and the sooner one of the big clubs goes broke through dodgy ownership the better.

[geosname]

All seems very quiet on this.

Surely if there was no deal and Smurf was doing as he said and staying there would of been an announcement by now.

 

Dont hold your breath... its good he says nowt till he has summat ta say

[werstayinup]

All seems very quiet on this.

Surely if there was no deal and Smurf was doing as he said and staying there would of been an announcement by now.

 

Not a chance has he done a deal plus a deal cant be done in 3 days he was there i am sure and like Tim has said before if the same problem is there that made the last deal break down then he didn't think any deal could be struck with anyone

 

I just think he is hanging on to say a deal cant be made but he will be our knight in shining armour and stay in charge and give us a budget to compete

[werstayinup]

I am led to believe a bid has been put in for the club and the ground along with bonuses but they want smurf to stay in charge until around June:shifty:

[Fosse69]

I am led to believe a bid has been put in for the club and the ground along with bonuses but they want smurf to stay in charge until around June:shifty:

A promotion bonus would be very welcome no doubt.

[werstayinup]

A promotion bonus would be very welcome no doubt.

 

May not be true but its what i have been told so just thought i would put it out there as a rumour if you like

[Machinist]

I am led to believe a bid has been put in for the club and the ground along with bonuses but they want smurf to stay in charge until around June:shifty:

 

dying to know some news, checking multiple times a day so can you expand on what source did this come from mate

[falmouthssoberist]

I believe there will be an announcement at the game Saturday but only if there is approximately 6800 people at the game