Jump to content

Football Thread 2020/2021


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

The aim of the protest was to get some owners out of a football club. I struggle to find that worthy of getting involved with protesting....

 

Just as well it's not about you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC news at 10 spinning this, calling the fans man utd fans who "believe" that the glazers have been taking money out of the club. They've only loaded club with hundreds of millions of pounds of debt and been paying themselves millions of pounds in dividends every year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR farcical again today, at least something in football is consistent but my word straight forward stamp to the head should have been an easy one to give but they did get their proven to be wrong lines out to rule out a really well worked goal :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eric86 said:

BBC news at 10 spinning this, calling the fans man utd fans who "believe" that the glazers have been taking money out of the club. They've only loaded club with hundreds of millions of pounds of debt and been paying themselves millions of pounds in dividends every year!

Super Bowls don’t come cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that everywhere is reporting that 'about 100' fans got onto the pitch at old trafford, accompanied by photos and videos of hundreds of fans on the pitch.  Do the police just make up a number and journalists report it without looking for themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's to make up for all the times they report 50,000 at the Emirates for a cup match but the stands looked like a COVID preview screening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those rules would appear to just up the ante - the next breakaway won’t be a supplemental competition to domestic leagues but a full scale fragmentation of the game with a permanent big team euro league, which they’ll just drop like a bombshell and walk away

Link to post
Share on other sites

Relieved we didn't lose the Black Country Derby yesterday - our recent worrying form gave me very little hope of getting anything out of the game but we played pretty well.  Pleasing to see that some of our young players gave a decent display - Silva, Ait-Nouri and Vitinha in particular looked good.  Quite where Allardyce gets off lamenting our 'luck' yesterday after the farcical decisions that went in their favour when they beat us at Molineux in January...  The Premier League won't miss him.

 

And although I don't actively despise Albion (local rivalries are such bollocks), I am pleased that they'll be going down so I don't have to put up with the pointless garbage that precedes and follows each fixture.  I absolutely hate the bullshit that such rivalries bring out in some fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Plissken said:

The Glazers ownership of Manchester United has cost the club £1bn.

 

During that time, they have won 5 Premier Leagues, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup, 3 League Cups, 6 Community Shields, one FIFA World Club Cup.  They've had the greatest manager of all time and after his retirement appointed two of the top coaches in European football history (who got fired after winning trophies).  They've brought through kids, and signed players of the calibre of Ibrahimovic, Cavani, Mata, Lukaku, Fernandes.  The club is a money making machine, in the top three worldwide in terms of revenues and profile, qualifies for the Champions League knockout stages more often than not.

 

At the risk of sounding like a troll because I know that I'm in a minority here, I wish that a lot of their fans would take a look at every other club in football in the world bar about five and answer me this -  what more exactly do you fucking want?

 

I know what you mean and was going to say something similar, Utd are one of the few clubs that can afford to actually have that debt and corporate leaches hanging on to them

 

Where it gets murkier is that they have incredibly low infrastructure spending, less than Brighton in the same period and the ground is now a rotting monument to what a good stadium used to be, and without them leaching that £1b out of the club you are looking at an outfit that could basically blow every other one financially out of the water.

 

The club has won things despite the Glazer's being there, and in reality has regressed on several commercial fronts, and would need huge spend to bring the facilities up to scratch - which would then impact their on pitch ability to compete at the level they are.

 

The money paid to the Glazers isn't free and they haven't been stellar owners on all fronts, that money hasn't bought brilliant expertise not seen anywhere else, the club isn't free of problems going forward, they are just big first world problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Plissken said:

The Glazers ownership of Manchester United has cost the club £1bn.

 

During that time, they have won 5 Premier Leagues, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup, 3 League Cups, 6 Community Shields, one FIFA World Club Cup.  They've had the greatest manager of all time and after his retirement appointed two of the top coaches in European football history (who got fired after winning trophies).  They've brought through kids, and signed players of the calibre of Ibrahimovic, Cavani, Mata, Lukaku, Fernandes.  The club is a money making machine, in the top three worldwide in terms of revenues and profile, qualifies for the Champions League knockout stages more often than not.

 

At the risk of sounding like a troll because I know that I'm in a minority here, I wish that a lot of their fans would take a look at every other club in football in the world bar about five and answer me this -  what more exactly do you fucking want?

 

Every inch of Manchester United's success since 2005 has been in spite of the ownership, not because of it.

 

What do I want? A club that retains roots to its local community. I was raised within sight of Old Trafford and since 2005 charitable spending and giving back to the community has been stripped to almost nothing. I also want the club to tick along within its means - don't forget United didn't need the takeover, nor that the takeover was leveraged. The Glazers bought United with United's own money.

 

Seeing as you're writing as if success on the pitch is the be all and end all, consider the extent of United's downfall since the takeover. Yes they remain a European tournament club, and Fergie managed an aging squad so well that they had their most successful European spell after the takeover.

 

Without the takeover? Well there would certainly be a better record home and abroad since 2008. As soon as the Ronaldo money went to the Glazers and top-line replacements like Valencia, Obertan, Bebe showed up.... You get the picture. This is a side that sweated on an appeal to hope Darren Fletcher could play a CL final. Fletch was a decent player but a United able to spend the money it generates would have had top-tier signings coming in.

 

And that's what it boils down to. I want to know that my money isn't going to a bunch of carpetbaggers. If you can only think of what's important by way of success on the pitch then this might not be possible to understand, but you should be able to understand that United without the current ownership would be in a far healthier position, by any metric, than with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gotters said:

The money paid to the Glazers isn't free and they haven't been stellar owners on all fronts, that money hasn't bought brilliant expertise not seen anywhere else, the club isn't free of problems going forward, they are just big first world problems.

 

This is the real problem I'm having with the protests.  If United were regularly finishing 9th-15th and unable or unwilling to compete with Liverpool, Chelsea etc for players I'd have a hell of a lot more sympathy for the situation.  But they are second in the league and hold a four goal advantage after one leg of a European semi-final.  They don't win 75% of trophies any more, but that's sport for you.  It's inherently cyclical.  As it is, they are being run like Mike Ashley runs Newcastle, but with an absolutely bulging trophy cabinet.

 

6 minutes ago, GamesGamesGames said:

What do I want? A club that retains roots to its local community. I was raised within sight of Old Trafford and since 2005 charitable spending and giving back to the community has been stripped to almost nothing. I also want the club to tick along within its means - don't forget United didn't need the takeover, nor that the takeover was leveraged. The Glazers bought United with United's own money.

 

Manchester United gave up its roots to the local community 20 years before the Glazers came along.  And the process that enabled the leveraged buyout was the same process that made them the richest and most successful club in the world for the 15 years prior.

 

I half want the Saudis to reappear outside the stadium with £2bn cash in a suitcase just to see the heads of some in the fanbase explode.

 

At the heart of the discussion is whether football clubs are community clubs or businesses.  Manchester United made it's choice in the 1990s and fans don't get to moan about the pitfalls while celebrating the successes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main thing you and Graham Souness need to understand that it has nothing to do with trophies or being a top 4/top 6 club. If it was all about that then FC United wouldn't have been formed. This has all been going on since the Glazers first turned up wanting to buy the club.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2021/may/03/manchester-united-fans-glazer-family-club-debt-premier-league

Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely unless you want a sportswashing sugar daddy with an iffy human rights record to gloss over, anyone buying Man Utd is going to be doing the same leveraged buyout style shit anyway? It's like that Spotify bloke who allegedly wants to buy Arsenal - why is he magically going to be any different to Kroenke? It just seems like the horse bolted long, long ago on all this ownership stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Plissken said:

 

This is the real problem I'm having with the protests.  If United were regularly finishing 9th-15th and unable or unwilling to compete with Liverpool, Chelsea etc for players I'd have a hell of a lot more sympathy for the situation.  But they are second in the league and hold a four goal advantage after one leg of a European semi-final.  They don't win 75% of trophies any more, but that's sport for you.  It's inherently cyclical.  As it is, they are being run like Mike Ashley runs Newcastle, but with an absolutely bulging trophy cabinet.

 

 

Manchester United gave up its roots to the local community 20 years before the Glazers came along.  And the process that enabled the leveraged buyout was the same process that made them the richest and most successful club in the world for the 15 years prior.

 

I half want the Saudis to reappear outside the stadium with £2bn cash in a suitcase just to see the heads of some in the fanbase explode.

 

At the heart of the discussion is whether football clubs are community clubs or businesses.  Manchester United made it's choice in the 1990s and fans don't get to moan about the pitfalls while celebrating the successes.

 

Manchester United still maintained links to the community even under the PLC. I opposed the PLC, but there's a world of difference between that model and where we are currently.

 

Nothing you're saying about 'if you were 15th' means anything. This has nothing to do with success, and everything to do with the ownership. United won the league and European Cup in 2008 with one of the best sides they've ever had. I never saw them play, and their success or otherwise has zero impact on the state of the club.

 

£2bn wouldn't buy United, but if you want Saudi's rolling up to buy any football club, for any reason, then you're a dick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Fox said:

But surely unless you want a sportswashing sugar daddy with an iffy human rights record to gloss over, anyone buying Man Utd is going to be doing the same leveraged buyout style shit anyway? It's like that Spotify bloke who allegedly wants to buy Arsenal - why is he magically going to be any different to Kroenke? It just seems like the horse bolted long, long ago on all this ownership stuff.

 

There's a lot of this gone over in the United thread, and I can't be arsed repeating it, so read there if you like. But FWIW, said Spotify bloke would be pulling the money together to buy Arsenal outright, and could afford the entire thing out of his own pocket if he wanted. Nothing leveraged about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GamesGamesGames said:

 

There's a lot of this gone over in the United thread, and I can't be arsed repeating it, so read there if you like. But FWIW, said Spotify bloke would be pulling the money together to buy Arsenal outright, and could afford the entire thing out of his own pocket if he wanted. Nothing leveraged about it.

 

Not that it is going to happen, but there is no way on this planet that Daniel Ek is buying Arsenal with his own money.  He only just has enough.  So the interest money is still going to go to the banks.

 

Now, the money is still exiting the club.  Is it money going to a bunch of banks pockets better or worse than it going into the owners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arsenal is valued at 2bn. Daniel Ek, alone, is valued at 3.25bn.

 

So he could, if he wanted, put in a bid at the going rate and still come out a billionaire. He can afford it.

 

Now you're right that he might structure the deal in any number of ways. So might I, if I were lucky enough to be able to buy United. If I can structure it in such a way as to make a better deal then fine. Given that I am one person, with the interests of the club at heart, I feel that's OK. The caveat in all this is I have no idea how much of an Arsenal fan Ek is, but assuming he is then the deal is not going to be leveraged. There's no way in the world he would be buying Arsenal with its own money as a means to milk it dry. He doesn't have to.

 

The Glazers were on their arses with their strip malls all dying, leaving them right in the hole when they struck lucky with United, and they have bled it dry ever since.

 

EDIT/NOTE: For accuracy's sake, the strip mall problem didn't really hit home until the sub-prime mortgage crisis and associated financial collapse, which is after 2005. There's too much to go into here, but the long and short is that the chickens came home to roost for the Glazer strip malls at a time of prohibitive loan paybacks, which led to an even tighter squeezing with the Ronaldo money and the PIK situation which led to Big Dave's Green and Gold campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Is it money going to a bunch of banks pockets better or worse than it going into the owners?

 

I know it's never good form to answer a question with a question, but I think it's fair here.

 

Would you rather your club be owned by an individual fan of the club, or an entity viewing it as part of a commercial portfolio?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world of course a fan owning a club would be better.

 

So another question - it's easy to spend other peoples money.  Would YOU spend 70% of your net wealth buying a football club?  Not running it, not improving it, not including transfer budget, simply BUYING it.  70% of your own net wealth.

 

(And FWIW, I worked out how rich I would have to be before I bought Burnley.  Based on the fact that ALK bought them for £200m, I worked out that I would need at least £1bn in actual, realisable cash before I would consider it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plissken said:

So another question - it's easy to spend other peoples money.  Would YOU spend 70% of your net wealth buying a football club?  Not running it, not improving it, not including transfer budget, simply BUYING it.  70% of your own net wealth.

 

If it was the club I support - without a moment's hesitation. Furthermore, I'd give enough of that ownership away to ensure it couldn't fall into the wrong hands after my passing.

 

I mean, in fairness I support a club that is worth an awful lot of money, so that outstanding 30% of my net wealth would still be eye-watering. Let's make it more interesting then and say I would spend whatever I had, even if the outcome was me having to work a desk job there to get by after the fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.