Glazers refinance the debt - again

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

tbf I may have overstated it, but still struggling to really care if everyone or anyone agrees tbh

although obviously United are still looking at making the odd strange-looking signing, and looking at stop-gaps too, as well as throwing £60m at the likes of Di Maria

Overstated? You? No way

Anyway.

All's well that ends well.

Originally Posted by Cream

Anyway.

All's well that ends well.

say that again in 2017 when the piks bring United down, pal


tbf I get why people still insist it was a risk that could have backfired, but I don't get why they insist that it was a spin of a roulette wheel - the odds were always hugely stacked in favour of a positive outcome (in financial terms) because of tv and tv exposure - is there an easier way to get into the homes of millions of people all around the world than by using football? of course not ffs and the price will continue to rise. the glazers have creamed plenty off for themselves for fronting it, but that's the finance industry for you - the biggest visible winners always tend to seem hideously undeserving.

I'd defy anyone to claim the latest PL deal was entirely expected 10 years ago, obviously, but the overall rise of tv revenues is far less of a shock - or should be - amazing to think that 10 years later United haven't even started streaming their own matches live on pay-per-view yet as well...

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

so many so-called experts reckoned they would basically ruin the club financially and destroy the club's status.

this is not true. many people thought there was a risk - a risk to be borne by the club and not by the people who put nothing in, but stood to gain a lot. you seem to think they haven't ruined the club.

Originally Posted by utd99

Ferguson was right when he said the time to protest with any hope of success was when the club first went public. Post floatation, an LBO was always a possiblility and certainly not illegal, so anyone not wishing to see the club in the hands of the Glazers or their ilk should have been screaming before, not after, the takeover. I also think our support was wildly misled by their success in thwarting Murdoch. That was achieved not by the power of popular protest, but by the illegality of the takeover itself. Ultimately it was merely a postponement of the inevitable.

no. the glazers could have taken over easily if the club were privately owned (see michael knighton, for example). being a plc gave a measure of protection, if anything. fergie was wrong about this, as about so much. fergie > united.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

tbf it's only glory-hunters who might need to paper over the fact united reached 3 CL finals in 4 years.

i have no truck at all with anyone who wants to argue that we should be competing on the transfer stage with the oil money.

*sigh* it's the opposite of glory-hunting to want to see us playing good football and not to be happy with getting to a couple of finals as things fall apart, running on empty and sense memory, combining fading loyal stars with with shite like fletch and park. we should have invested in the midfield. we did not need to compete with city and chelsea in the transfer market - we just needed not to be constrained (we have only ever been a player or two away from winning the league for the last ten years). the fact that we are now thinking about spending ridiculous sums on average players in a stupid market is not a good thing either. we don't need statement buys. we need to develop good players. we are more like liverpool than united.

Originally Posted by My Name is Keith

The deterioration in the squad was down to fergie rather than the glazers.

Basically throb's general point is right imv. Stories of my death are greatly exaggerated etc.

fergie was not infallible. his cl final choices were gutless, given we had no hope of winning with safe options. and his acceptance of mediocrity was criminal.

united lives. but it could have been much worse. the glazers should never be forgiven. and what kind of a life was last season? cabbage status. sure, we can just about hear our favourite band and feel someone holding our hand right now. we're not quite up and dancing.

Originally Posted by jem

*sigh* it's the opposite of glory-hunting to want to see us playing good football and not to be happy with getting to a couple of finals as things fall apart, running on empty and sense memory, combining fading loyal stars with with shite like fletch and park. we should have invested in the midfield. we did not need to compete with city and chelsea in the transfer market - we just needed not to be constrained (we have only ever been a player or two away from winning the league for the last ten years). the fact that we are now thinking about spending ridiculous sums on average players in a stupid market is not a good thing either. we don't need statement buys. we need to develop good players. we are more like liverpool than united.
.

although I think you're hopelessly underestimating the achievement of reaching those 2 finals, and the quality of the football in so doing... we aren't that far apart on the rest of it - I still don't see why the ferguson factor is played down in favour of claiming financial constraints are the biggest player in the midfield not being constantly strengthened.

another key part of it was the fact that hargreaves and anderson both turned out to be short term successes at best, and that giggs and scholes' retirements were constantly put back due to their incredible abilities to carry on at the highest level - we have seen similar with xavi and iniesta at barcelona, not least with them having seen off fabregas who was supposedly the heir apparent for at least one of them. that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

building a team is about so much more than just buying players. any debate focussing in on net spend figures is fundamentally flawed for that reason.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

tbf I get why people still insist it was a risk that could have backfired, but I don't get why they insist that it was a spin of a roulette wheel - the odds were always hugely stacked in favour of a positive outcome (in financial terms) because of tv and tv exposure - is there an easier way to get into the homes of millions of people all around the world than by using football? of course not ffs and the price will continue to rise.

You really should be Visiting Professor in Hindsight at the University of Life. I don't remember the Glazers bidding for United in an auction against numerous other buyers all vying anxiously for the asset.

Years later we all know about the mega bucks of TV rights internationally but it was a casino like gamble that not many other people were prepared to take or indeed, back NQAT.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

although I think you're hopelessly underestimating the achievement of reaching those 2 finals, and the quality of the football in so doing... we aren't that far apart on the rest of it - I still don't see why the ferguson factor is played down in favour of claiming financial constraints are the biggest player in the midfield not being constantly strengthened.

another key part of it was the fact that hargreaves and anderson both turned out to be short term successes at best, and that giggs and scholes' retirements were constantly put back due to their incredible abilities to carry on at the highest level - we have seen similar with xavi and iniesta at barcelona, not least with them having seen off fabregas who was supposedly the heir apparent for at least one of them. that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

building a team is about so much more than just buying players. any debate focussing in on net spend figures is fundamentally flawed for that reason.

I am not underestimating reaching finals or winning leagues. fergie milked something out (even if ultimately more concerned with not looking stupid than gambling to win). I can't say our runs to the final were all that convincing. equally, the year we were beaten by bayern we should have gone to the final.

but you are missing the point. it's not about trophies and finals. it's about doing things the right way. my objection to the glazers is primarily an objection to the debt. united gained nothing from the debt. it was their debt. there is nothing in terms of sponsorship, tv money, transfers and performances that could not have been achieved without the debt. all the debt got us was new owners (and unnecesssary risk). owners who want to milk united, not put united first. they're not stupid, but that is not the same as saying they are good for the club. they aren't.

there are plenty of other things to complain about too. fergie. moyes. van gaal. these are all things we might have had to complain about anyway. though god knows moyes was £#%&!ing obviously going to be a disaster.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

another key part of it was the fact that hargreaves and anderson both turned out to be short term successes at best, and that giggs and scholes' retirements were constantly put back due to their incredible abilities to carry on at the highest level - we have seen similar with xavi and iniesta at barcelona, not least with them having seen off fabregas who was supposedly the heir apparent for at least one of them. that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

You can't compare United replacing Scholes and Giggs with Barcelona replacing Xavi and Iniesta, unless you're rightfully criticising United's woeful failure at replacing two club legends, compared with Barcelona's ruthless efficiency.

All the talk after 2011 was about teams working in cycles, and how Barca's dominance would inevitably end when the triangular axis of Xaxi-Iniesta-Messi broke up. Fergie trotted out some such tripe straight after getting his arse handed to him by Pep after the Wembley final.

It's turned out to be a load of balls, as Barcelona have put together a front three that is even better than what they had between 2008-2011, have bought one of Europe's best central midfielders in Ivan Rakitić to replace Xavi, and are favourites to sign Paul Pogba to take them up yet another level.

Fergie pissed so much cash up the wall on absolute turds during his last few years. He was the one responsible for the stinkfest that made up our midfield after the Ronaldo sale; him and those clueless, lapdog, yes-men that sat in the dugout with him.

Originally Posted by Neo

You can't compare United replacing Scholes and Giggs with Barcelona replacing Xavi and Iniesta, unless you're rightfully criticising United's woeful failure at replacing two club legends, compared with Barcelona's ruthless efficiency.

All the talk after 2011 was about teams working in cycles, and how Barca's dominance would inevitably end when the triangular axis of Xaxi-Iniesta-Messi broke up. Fergie trotted out some such tripe straight after getting his arse handed to him by Pep after the Wembley final.

It's turned out to be a load of balls, as Barcelona have put together a front three that is even better than what they had between 2008-2011, have bought one of Europe's best central midfielders in Ivan Rakitić to replace Xavi, and are favourites to sign Paul Pogba to take them up yet another level.

Fergie pissed so much cash up the wall on absolute turds during his last few years. He was the one responsible for the stinkfest that made up our midfield after the Ronaldo sale; him and those clueless, lapdog, yes-men that sat in the dugout with him.

Neo against throb is always fascinating.

Originally Posted by Neo

You can't compare United replacing Scholes and Giggs with Barcelona replacing Xavi and Iniesta, unless you're rightfully criticising United's woeful failure at replacing two club legends, compared with Barcelona's ruthless efficiency.

All the talk after 2011 was about teams working in cycles, and how Barca's dominance would inevitably end when the triangular axis of Xaxi-Iniesta-Messi broke up. Fergie trotted out some such tripe straight after getting his arse handed to him by Pep after the Wembley final.

It's turned out to be a load of balls, as Barcelona have put together a front three that is even better than what they had between 2008-2011, have bought one of Europe's best central midfielders in Ivan Rakitić to replace Xavi, and are favourites to sign Paul Pogba to take them up yet another level.

Fergie pissed so much cash up the wall on absolute turds during his last few years. He was the one responsible for the stinkfest that made up our midfield after the Ronaldo sale; him and those clueless, lapdog, yes-men that sat in the dugout with him.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

You really should be Visiting Professor in Hindsight at the University of Life. I don't remember the Glazers bidding for United in an auction against numerous other buyers all vying anxiously for the asset.

Years later we all know about the mega bucks of TV rights internationally but it was a casino like gamble that not many other people were prepared to take or indeed, back NQAT.

Originally Posted by jem

I am not underestimating reaching finals or winning leagues. fergie milked something out (even if ultimately more concerned with not looking stupid than gambling to win). I can't say our runs to the final were all that convincing. equally, the year we were beaten by bayern we should have gone to the final.

but you are missing the point. it's not about trophies and finals. it's about doing things the right way. my objection to the glazers is primarily an objection to the debt. united gained nothing from the debt. it was their debt. there is nothing in terms of sponsorship, tv money, transfers and performances that could not have been achieved without the debt. all the debt got us was new owners (and unnecesssary risk). owners who want to milk united, not put united first. they're not stupid, but that is not the same as saying they are good for the club. they aren't.

there are plenty of other things to complain about too. fergie. moyes. van gaal. these are all things we might have had to complain about anyway. though god knows moyes was £#%&!ing obviously going to be a disaster.

the structure of the deal was/is a sick joke, we can all agree on that, but I just happened to think (and still think) that the very fact we were the finance industry's bitch (rather than just the owners') gave us a safety net.

as far as the glazers go the fact is that sponsorship, marketing and tv was not being maximised or anywhere near it before they took over, and as you say there wasn't exactly a queue of bidders lining up to make it happen either. the TV explosion isn't a hindsight thing, it was mentioned over and over at the time (even I could see it ;-}). the critics of the takeover mostly focussed on nonsense about pay-per-view, isolation, naming rights and other narrow scare stories of what was supposedly inevitably about to come to pass in order to pay the bills... hopefully nothing I've said suggests any admiration for the owners btw, because that has never been part of it - it's the system that's the problem. it's a fact that they didn't put their own money in. they couldn't claim ownership if the system hadn't put it in for them. if it was such a risk then in an era where risk-taking in the finance industry is under severe scrutiny then where is the scrutiny on those who leant the glazers the money?

Originally Posted by Neo

You can't compare United replacing Scholes and Giggs with Barcelona replacing Xavi and Iniesta, unless you're rightfully criticising United's woeful failure at replacing two club legends, compared with Barcelona's ruthless efficiency.

All the talk after 2011 was about teams working in cycles, and how Barca's dominance would inevitably end when the triangular axis of Xaxi-Iniesta-Messi broke up. Fergie trotted out some such tripe straight after getting his arse handed to him by Pep after the Wembley final.

It's turned out to be a load of balls, as Barcelona have put together a front three that is even better than what they had between 2008-2011, have bought one of Europe's best central midfielders in Ivan Rakitić to replace Xavi, and are favourites to sign Paul Pogba to take them up yet another level.

Fergie pissed so much cash up the wall on absolute turds during his last few years. He was the one responsible for the stinkfest that made up our midfield after the Ronaldo sale; him and those clueless, lapdog, yes-men that sat in the dugout with him.

Originally Posted by Neo

You can't compare United replacing Scholes and Giggs with Barcelona replacing Xavi and Iniesta, unless you're rightfully criticising United's woeful failure at replacing two club legends, compared with Barcelona's ruthless efficiency..

I can and I have.

Scholes saw off many of his would-be successors, just like Xavi/Iniesta did, not least Fabregas who was let go to Arsenal, brought back, and then sold again because he couldn't displace them. If you call that ruthless efficiency then crack on, I'm sure a few £#%&!wits will back you up on it. Barcelona are back in the game this season because they addressed their forward line.

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

the structure of the deal was/is a sick joke, we can all agree on that, but I just happened to think (and still think) that the very fact we were the finance industry's bitch (rather than just the owners') gave us a safety net.

as far as the glazers go the fact is that sponsorship, marketing and tv was not being maximised or anywhere near it before they took over, and as you say there wasn't exactly a queue of bidders lining up to make it happen either. the TV explosion isn't a hindsight thing, it was mentioned over and over at the time (even I could see it ;-}). the critics of the takeover mostly focussed on nonsense about pay-per-view, isolation, naming rights and other narrow scare stories of what was supposedly inevitably about to come to pass in order to pay the bills... hopefully nothing I've said suggests any admiration for the owners btw, because that has never been part of it - it's the system that's the problem. it's a fact that they didn't put their own money in. they couldn't claim ownership if the system hadn't put it in for them. if it was such a risk then in an era where risk-taking in the finance industry is under severe scrutiny then where is the scrutiny on those who leant the glazers the money?

Er...there is no scrutiny on them because it all worked out - unlike the sub prime lending that caught out HBOS etc

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

I can and I have.

Scholes saw off many of his would-be successors, just like Xavi/Iniesta did, not least Fabregas who was let go to Arsenal, brought back, and then sold again because he couldn't displace them. If you call that ruthless efficiency then crack on, I'm sure a few £#%&!wits will back you up on it. Barcelona are back in the game this season because they addressed their forward line.

They're back in the game because they spent over £150m on Neymar Jr. and Suarez, which is precisely the type of spending power that you seem to be so vigorously against United displaying.

Of course the Fabregas scenario was an example of their ruthless efficiency. They bought a brilliant player they didn't necessarily need, and then £#%&!ed him off when they realised he was surplus.

They also lost Thiago Alcantara in a similar way to us losing Pogba, but don't seem to have bitched and moaned about it; they just got on with it by investing properly into the side, and not buying Michael £#%&!ing Owen and Bebe.

Originally Posted by Neo

They also lost Thiago Alcantara in a similar way to us losing Pogba, but don't seem to have bitched and moaned about it; they just got on with it by investing properly into the side, and not buying Michael £#%&!ing Owen and Bebe.

tbf, at the time some fredsters thought the signing of Bebe was another bit of managerial genius from Frogson:

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showpo...&postcount=400

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showpo...&postcount=737

Originally Posted by Neo

Of course the Fabregas scenario was an example of their ruthless efficiency. They bought a brilliant player they didn't necessarily need, and then £#%&!ed him off when they realised he was surplus.

They also lost Thiago Alcantara in a similar way to us losing Pogba

I didn't do a list that proves you wrong, but you're doing it yourself anyway

Scholes and Giggs saw off most pretenders to their throne and eventually this meant that United had no instant replacement for either of them. Iniesta hasn't actually finished yet and has seen off Fabregas. Last season Barcelona had no genuine replacement for the badly waning Xavi last season, and although they won domestically (just as we did in 2013) they were utterly humiliated in the CL. This season they appear to have got back on track with Rakitic doing pretty well, but generally their recovery is built around the introduction of Suarez to their forward line. Do feel free to bring up United signing Obertan and Owen 6 years ago though

Originally Posted by The Watcher

tbf, at the time some fredsters thought the signing of Bebe was another bit of managerial genius from Frogson:

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showpo...&postcount=400

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showpo...&postcount=737

Nobody better at this stuff than you chief

Originally Posted by The Watcher

tbf, at the time some fredsters thought the signing of Bebe was another bit of managerial genius from Frogson:

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showpo...&postcount=400

http://www.utdforum.com/forum/showpo...&postcount=737

lovely work there from that Throb fella - can't understand anyone being bitter about United signing a tramp tbh

Originally Posted by Semantic Lisp

if it was such a risk then in an era where risk-taking in the finance industry is under severe scrutiny then where is the scrutiny on those who leant the glazers the money?

the reason the finance was structured so that there were layers of risk, with the piks being high-risk and high-price? you can't be this stupid.