FSG Watch...

[surf]

4 hours ago, crouchinho said:

It’s true that I see it as a negative if we were bought out by Qatar. But I don’t see it as a positive if we were taken over by a different US hedge fund. Ask me and I’ll happily answer but please don’t assume stuff about me. I also object to this black and white philosophy of only thinking in direct opposites. Just because I don’t want my club to become a sports washing project for a corrupt human rights violating regime doesn’t mean I love hedge funds. It also doesn’t mean I love FSG or guns or US foreign policy. I am in my full right to have my own opinion and I refuse to believe twitter spoofers over legit professionals. Now I may be fooled here by the FSG-Pearce-Athletic spin machine but that would be a different conversation in its self. Until then please don’t assume you know my views and please don’t listen to twitter or tabloids. 

Good post that.

It does leave us in a bind in that there are really no good options. Either we have s***ty owners and a chance to compete or we have decent owners but irrelevant for the top prizes.

Unless there's a rainbow unicorn owner out there, but that's not looking realistic. Or UEFA/FIFA fix sportswashing but that's even more of a long shot.

[Bailo]

2 hours ago, Hassony said:

Owning both Manchester and Paris would take them over their allowed RPSM

Regular Permissible s*** Mancs? 

[Hassony]

15 minutes ago, Bailo said:

Regular Permissible s*** Mancs? 

Rats per square meter 

[honourablegeorge]

1 hour ago, surf said:

Good post that.

It does leave us in a bind in that there are really no good options. Either we have s***ty owners and a chance to compete or we have decent owners but irrelevant for the top prizes.

Unless there's a rainbow unicorn owner out there, but that's not looking realistic. Or UEFA/FIFA fix sportswashing but that's even more of a long shot.

Don't suppose that lad who owned Patagonia is a red, is he? I fear he might be poor now, though

[Bogman]

[growler]

As a stand-alone business we have a great financial structure. Low debt, good cashflow, profitable etc. 

a bit like arsenal after they moved to new stadium. Wenger kept that team functioning whilst the infrastructure was upgraded and debt paid down.

the issue remains we are competing with countries. 

we have caught up with united in terms of our books and so in theory we can spend how they do. We are choosing not to use debt to build the team. If Erik didn’t work out, they would’ve been in trouble I reckon.

All still comes back to FSG. This is a unique situation and era. We had momentum. Taking an extra 200m debt wouldn’t have strained us. Klopp would spend it wisely.

they did a great job of taking us from where we were, to are now. You can say it’s on Klopp and it is. Yet they’ve leveraged that to ensure we are many steps ahead.

the main issue is being so risk averse. A small gamble given the manager and record of success.

 

[Bogman]

So then, what’s our tipping point.

When do people get off the fence and voice concern publicly.

[Benzo-13]

29 minutes ago, Bogman said:

So then, what’s our tipping point.

When do people get off the fence and voice concern publicly.

It would have to be for something awful behind the scenes to go public ala Klinsmann. 

[Tommok]

14 hours ago, growler said:

without the glazers, united wouldve turned this league into Germany.

I don't really get this - presumably you're saying with "better owners" Utd would be steam rollering the league like Bayern do in Germany? 

The Glazers may have failed to spend money on the stadium and training ground etc but they've given successive Utd managers huge sums of money to spend on players, certainly way more than we could dream of, and probably more than most owners would have - other than maybe the City owners and the City owners have seemingly pretty blatantly "cheated the system".

Utd's failings have been due to Ferguson leaving their squad in a poor state and then a stream of crap managers.

I suppose you could blame the Glazers for hiring the wrong people to hire those managers but.. 

City were always going to be a dominant force with their unrivalled spending power (and "financial cheating"). The fact we managed to keep up with them is a Klopp shaped miracle. 

Maybe the Glazers biggest mistake was not hiring people that would've hired Klopp. I'd like to think he'd never have gone there tho and I'm pretty sure he would never have done. 

Give Klopp the money that successive Utd managers have had and we'd have been even better. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Tommok

[growler]

6 hours ago, Tommok said:

I don't really get this - presumably you're saying with "better owners" Utd would be steam rollering the league like Bayern do in Germany? 

The Glazers may have failed to spend money on the stadium and training ground etc but they've given successive Utd managers huge sums of money to spend on players, certainly way more than we could dream of, and probably more than most owners would have - other than maybe the City owners and the City owners have seemingly pretty blatantly "cheated the system".

Utd's failings have been due to Ferguson leaving their squad in a poor state and then a stream of crap managers.

I suppose you could blame the Glazers for hiring the wrong people to hire those managers but.. 

City were always going to be a dominant force with their unrivalled spending power (and "financial cheating"). The fact we managed to keep up with them is a Klopp shaped miracle. 

Maybe the Glazers biggest mistake was not hiring people that would've hired Klopp. I'd like to think he'd never have gone there tho and I'm pretty sure he would never have done. 

Give Klopp the money that successive Utd managers have had and we'd have been even better. 

When the glazers took over, Alex was still firing on all cylinders. They were making 30-40mil profit every season and showed no signs of stopping. That profit went into interest and dividends. Without the glazers, they would’ve hoovered up top talent and continued to dominate and Alex would’ve left a stronger squad. 17 years - how much money gone on interest and dividends in that time.

the fact they’ve spent what they have in last 7 years DESPITE all that is the point.

 

[muleskinner]

'Alex' welcomed the glazers with open arms and told the fans to shut up moaning about them. 

[growler]

13 minutes ago, muleskinner said:

'Alex' welcomed the glazers with open arms and told the fans to shut up moaning about them. 

Mmmm

He said a lot of things 

[Benzo-13]

14 minutes ago, muleskinner said:

'Alex' welcomed the glazers with open arms and told the fans to shut up moaning about them. 

He did and Bobby Charlton got a bag of swag off them too for good PR.

[muleskinner]

2 minutes ago, growler said:

Mmmm

He said a lot of things 

He has consistently supported them for years. 

[Dominus Maximus]

Unless FSG sell the club for what they’ve invested then they stand to walk away with a 2500 mil profit if they sell at 3000 mil. 

That money could have been invested in the squad. The fact that United have spent 500 mil more net since Jurgen came in speaks volumes. 

I’m thinking we’d be better off with the Glazers over FSG. At least they put money into the squad. FSG is spending 27m net per season. That’s a joke. 

[Hassony]

50 minutes ago, growler said:

When the glazers took over, Alex was still firing on all cylinders. They were making 30-40mil profit every season and showed no signs of stopping. That profit went into interest and dividends. Without the glazers, they would’ve hoovered up top talent and continued to dominate and Alex would’ve left a stronger squad. 17 years - how much money gone on interest and dividends in that time.

the fact they’ve spent what they have in last 7 years DESPITE all that is the point.

 

They've spent more than any other club since ferguson left

And Ferguson has been on thier payroll for all that time 

[muleskinner]

2 minutes ago, crouchinho said:

Unless FSG sell the club for what they’ve invested then they stand to walk away with a 2500 mil profit if they sell at 3000 mil. 

That money could have been invested in the squad. The fact that United have spent 500 mil more net since Jurgen came in speaks volumes. 

I’m thinking we’d be better off with the Glazers over FSG. At least they put money into the squad. FSG is spending 27m net per season. That’s a joke. 

There's lot wrong at lfc right now. The mancs are facing their worst run without a trophy in 40 years.

[Dominus Maximus]

1 minute ago, muleskinner said:

There's lot wrong at lfc right now. The mancs are facing their worst run without a trophy in 40 years.

Absolutely awful. But it’s not because they’ve not spent money. The narrative is that the Glazers are bleeding them dry. That may be true but they have put a lot of money into the squad. Much money than our owners. 

[PaulMcC186]

4 minutes ago, crouchinho said:

Absolutely awful. But it’s not because they’ve not spent money. The narrative is that the Glazers are bleeding them dry. That may be true but they have put a lot of money into the squad. Much money than our owners. 

The Glazers have put nothing in. United made all that money. They've taken massive amounts of money out. 

[muleskinner]

8 minutes ago, crouchinho said:

Absolutely awful. But it’s not because they’ve not spent money. The narrative is that the Glazers are bleeding them dry. That may be true but they have put a lot of money into the squad. Much money than our owners. 

They have taken out a fortune and got the club to pay the loans back. Its Hicks & Gillett on an even bigger scale. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by muleskinner

[Dominus Maximus]

2 minutes ago, PaulMcC186 said:

The Glazers have put nothing in. United made all that money. They've taken massive amounts of money out. 

Semantics really. The moment the bought the club it was all their money. Every cent into the squad is money they can’t collect. 

1 minute ago, muleskinner said:

They have taken out a fortune and got the club to pay the loans back. Its Hicks & Gillett on an even bigger scale. 

Again. I understand. Yet they invested more in the actual squad. Like would you actually care if we had to take out a bank loan if it meant giving Jurgen say 300 mil to spend. 

[muleskinner]

11 minutes ago, crouchinho said:

Semantics really. The moment the bought the club it was all their money. Every cent into the squad is money they can’t collect. 

Again. I understand. Yet they invested more in the actual squad. Like would you actually care if we had to take out a bank loan if it meant giving Jurgen say 300 mil to spend. 

You are cryarsing so much that you look to the the Glazers and think what a great job they have done and are doing for that club. 

[Murdoch]

Not that we should particularly care what's happening over there, there's no way you can look at what the Glazers have done and think they're not crap owners. Yes they've allowed money to be invested in the squad (money generated by the club so not charity), but it's there crap commercial and footballing appointments that have led to all that money being wasted on dross.

Our appointments on and off the field look to have been good, but without the investment. Neither situation is a desirable 1.

[Dominus Maximus]

31 minutes ago, muleskinner said:

You are cryarsing so much that you look to the the Glazers and think what a great job they have done and are doing for that club. 

No. I’m just saying they put a lot of money into their team. 

[Boca]

Red Cafe on here all of a sudden