Have they really been that bad for Manchester United?
Since the Glazers arrived at Old Trafford, much has been made of the Americans, and very little of it being positive. In fact, such was the outrage at their purchase of United, fans created FC United and have worn green and gold coloured scarves to protest ever since. Yet with United posting profits of £29.7 million pre-tax, and for the first time seeing their revenue pass £300 million for the first time, have the Glazer’s been such a bad influence at Old Trafford?
One fact that you cannot get away with when debating the effect of the Glazer’s on Manchester United is the amount of debt they amassed against the club when they first bought it. Since 2005, it is estimated that £478 million has been spent on servicing debt, with £373 million of that spent on interest fees (the guardian) with the year just gone having seen close to £52 million alone on intrest payments.
Fans are obviously unhappy about this, and have the right to be concerned, and when the Glazers’ first arrived it was more than reasonable for them to hold concern for the club they love so much. The fear of United being lost to debt or face up to being less competitive in the transfer market due to lack of available funds, not to mention the worry over keeping hold of key players were very real issues.
However, the Glazers have been at United for enough time now to make a more complete judgement about them, and take into account other factors than profits and debt – which whilst important are not the be all and end all of running a football club.
One thing that the Glazer’s cannot be faulted on is letting Fergie run United the way he sees fit. Granted it would take a brave man to tell the legend that is Sir Alex Ferguson how to do his job, but when you compare the level of interference from the Glazers to that of Abramovich and his managerial merry-go round at Chelsea, or the Sheik at City, Fergie has a remarkable amount of control over all things at Old Trafford – both on and off the field.
Not only does he have final say on things at all levels at the club, the Glazers have not once tried to force players on him – a la Shevchenko at Chelsea- or forced Fergie into selling for any reason. Yes, people may point to the departure of Ronaldo, but no player is bigger than the club, Fergie knows this, and once the boy wanted to leave, United knew better than to keep him. The £80 million from Ronaldo was a great bit of business, and the sale had very little to do with financial issues or needing to raise capital. Had Ronaldo wanted to stay, Fergie would never have been forced into selling him.
The Glazers have also provided money for the purchase of players – and good ones at that. This summer especially has seen the arrival of several players such as Phil Jones, Ashley Young and De Gea. Obviously there are some constraints, as there would be with any owner, but for the main, Fergie has not been prevented from buying both when he felt was necessary and who he felt was needed.
Nor can it be said that the Glazers have hampered United’s progress on the field –since their arrival in 2005, success has still befallen United, and yes you can say this is because of Fergie and the players, but the owners could have easily prevented such success by interfering in the day to day running of the club – something that they have steered well clear of.
For some, the level of debt that the Glazer’s have inflicted on United is unforgivable, making them the most indebt club in world football with £715 million to be precise, and the ‘green and gold until United are sold’ will always be their way of thinking, but in actual fact, are the Glazer’s just the best of the worst in terms of football owners?
I realise that is about as complementary as saying that Capello is doing a better job with England than McClaren did, but realistically, it could be much worse in terms of the level of interference the Glazers inflict upon Fergie. Having all the money in the world cannot make up for a lack of control and being told who to play – just ask the last 8 Chelsea managers.
FREE football app that pays you CASH
Football News 24/7
Are you having a laugh?.”Have they really been that bad for Manchester United”.
Its nothing to do with the Glazer that has brought United’s success….nothing.
Its all down to Sir Alex Ferguson the management team he had in place prior to their arrival at Old Trafford.The players, play for Sir Alex and the ethic he has installed at United through his previous 20 years at United.
Yes we have won trophies while they have been ‘caretakers’ of this magnificent club, I however give zero credit to them…..Zilch!.
The ‘owners’ could not even make the simple journey over to Old Trafford to recognise his 25 years in charge.I mean how pathetic is that.If it were not for him we would have been sunk and probably squabling around at the lower end of the division.
The Green and Gold campaign is only on hold just now.The boss asked for this, although as soon as the results start to fail(which know one wants)it will reappear and rightly so.
The season ticket demand at Old Trafford has gone….no interest.Anybody can get a ST now, what does that tell you.?
Tell the truth in the article ‘THEY’ have cost United to date £532.00 Million in interest, management fee’s , loans to family members etc etc.
The previous period between the years 1991 – 2005 inclusive the dividends to the shareholders amounted to £62.6 Million……Note the difference?
The spend on players net the years of the Glazer 6 years including the Summer investment £9.5 Million per season!.
The 6 years prior to their unwanted takeover of United net spend per season £14.00 Million…..Note the difference?
.
Yes they have been great for United……Not!!!!!!
Reply
Well i suppose its all a matter of opinion really.
If you think loading a previously debt free club with over £500m worth of debt, throwing away hundreds of millions of pounds of our money on interest repayments (money that could have gone towards improving the club), increasing season tickets by over 50% in less than 5 years, thus pricing out dozens of lifelong local reds from watching their team, causing a split and ructions between what was once a very united set of fans, and doing everything with a degree of secrecy and never informing us of anything, makes them great owners then fair play to you, you’re a more forgiving person than i am mate.
Me thinks though if you asked this question to match going local reds (of which i was myself before deciding to give up at the end of the 09/10 season) they wouldnt go along with your line of thinking, but to each their own.
As for praising them for not interfering with the running of the club, well id say throwing away money that would otherwise have been spent on the team is interfering, wouldnt you. But in the true sense of the word, why on earth should we praise them for not interfering? Why ought we to give someone credit for merely not doing something they have no business doing? Man Utd was bought because of our status and success, and clearly the Glazers policy was based on retaining the services of the man who has brought that success, thus to “interfere” would have been madness.
I’m sure even the most foolish of owners would not kill the goose that lays the golden egg by interfering with SAF’s running of the team.
They have however, hampereed him greatly with their new and austere signing and contract policies, so SAF’s success has come despite them,
not in any way because of them.
Reply
The Glaziers are to outsiders businessmen but to most Red Supporters parasites making a mighty Big Buck at the expence of the team, manager and supporter. Compare to Abramovic and the sheik at City both not in my humble opinion out to exploit their clubs as cash machines. Glaziers astute money men laughing all the way to their next billion.
Reply
los amo a todos mas alos dos caantn ayyyy q lindos q sn d dnd sn los ammmmoooooooooo el de gorrita rosa esta una bombom x estallar de lindo sy paola
Reply