Glazer Takes Control...

[drinkfeckarse]

So Scholes, Neville, Giggs etc weren't to do with a great youth system, but were because of money?

I thought he made the point quite clear that they bought big but kept homegrown players like Scholes, Neville etc on big wages.

[Macy]

I thought he made the point quite clear that they bought big but kept homegrown players like Scholes, Neville etc on big wages.

Well to me it's not clear, because as recently as Nicky Butt they've left United on bigger contracts. The ones that stayed could've got more elsewhere if they'd been inclined - Only goldenballs was, Butt was well on the downward slope when he left. False assumption by the journalist and/or Donal...

[Donal81]

So Scholes, Neville, Giggs etc weren't to do with a great youth system, but were because of money?

Everton had a great youngster on their books. His name was Wayne Rooney. Unfortunately, they lost him to a much bigger club who could offer him wages they could never match and who have won everything over the past ten years with the best players.

Would that happen to a Man Utd player? Would Man U lose a youngster to Everton? No they wouldn't. I thought I made it clear what my point was...Man Utd could afford the record signing of Roy Keane, they could afford Veron, Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy but they could also keep world class players like Scholes and Giggs (well, when he was Rooney's age) at the club for life. I thought that was quite obvious in my post.

[the 12 th man]

fwiw,
giggs & howard signed 2 year deals today

[ColinR]

Would that happen to a Man Utd player? Would Man U lose a youngster to Everton? No they wouldn't. I thought I made it clear what my point was...Man Utd could afford the record signing of Roy Keane, they could afford Veron, Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy but they could also keep world class players like Scholes and Giggs (well, when he was Rooney's age) at the club for life. I thought that was quite obvious in my post.

yes but the reason united could/can afford all of those players is that they get 68000 at every home game big or small (excluding a couple of league cup matches that only attract around 55000), and the likes of everton only get about half that. united are(were) rich simply because they were the most supported - not because of a rich owner.

the inequities of current football means that money follows money, which has seen united getting richer and richer, but the base was always the support - every other club could have become just as rich, if only they had as many fans

[Roo69]

A very good quote from a united fan "He's not turning up with a suitcase full of his own cash. He is, in effect, asking Manchester United fans to pay for his takeover, to pay for increased ticket prices and increased merchandising."

Sums the whole thing up really

[anto1208]

yes but the reason united could/can afford all of those players is that they get 68000 at every home game big or small (excluding a couple of league cup matches that only attract around 55000), and the likes of everton only get about half that. united are(were) rich simply because they were the most supported - not because of a rich owner.

the inequities of current football means that money follows money, which has seen united getting richer and richer, but the base was always the support - every other club could have become just as rich, if only they had as many fans

utds wealth is down to sky when the premiership as we know it was started sky owned a large share in utd , there for showing utd more earned them more money ( 1.5 mill per game last year sky showed utd around 15 times while teams like everton got shown 4 or 5 thats an extra 15 mill into utds pocket ) . due to this increase in exposure and turnover and mainly down to peter kenon's extreamly good bussiness sence they created the global brand that is utd today . sky flogged there share s making a killing .
this myth that utd got wealthy winning stuff is rubbish they were made wealthy so that they would win stuff and make sky a huge profit .

[anto1208]

A very good quote from a united fan "He's not turning up with a suitcase full of his own cash. He is, in effect, asking Manchester United fans to pay for his takeover, to pay for increased ticket prices and increased merchandising."

Sums the whole thing up really

so does every club! at chelsea you can pay upto £1200 for a season ticket and even though there owner is worth billions chelsea still have massive debts(200 mill) that means chelsea have to be successfull on the pitch and it has to come from fans pockets !to pay off this debt it does not come from romans pocket .

[ColinR]

utds wealth is down to sky when the premiership as we know it was started sky owned a large share in utd , there for showing utd more earned them more money ( 1.5 mill per game last year sky showed utd around 15 times while teams like everton got shown 4 or 5 thats an extra 15 mill into utds pocket ) . due to this increase in exposure and turnover and mainly down to peter kenon's extreamly good bussiness sence they created the global brand that is utd today . sky flogged there share s making a killing .
this myth that utd got wealthy winning stuff is rubbish they were made wealthy so that they would win stuff and make sky a huge profit .

wrong wrong wrong.

sky got interested in united's shares in 1998, when they tried to takeover, when shareholders united won that battle, they bought approx 9.9% which was the max they were allowed under the competition laws in the uk. they also bought shares in a number of other premiership clubs in anticipation of an attempt by clubs for a free for all on tv rights - the logic being, as they have shares in certain clubs, they could obtain tv rights for them clubs, and still provide a comprehensive coverage.

the reason united are shown more than the likes of everton on tv. again back to my original post - popularity. more people want to watch united than everton, so again its united's fanbase which is the income driver. if united did not have the largest support base they wouldn't have been the richest or most profitable - fullstop

[tiktok]

Would Man U lose a youngster to Everton? No they wouldn't.

Yes they would. His name was John O'Kane and he was a promising full back, just couldn't get Irwin out of the side.

I thought I made it clear what my point was...Man Utd could afford the record signing of Roy Keane.

Blackburn offered Roy better terms, he chose United because he wanted to play there. Jesus, at one stage Phil Babb was a record transfer fee for a defender, Stan Collymore too. In any event, who could argue that £3.75 million for Roy Keane wasn't a brilliant signing.

they could afford Veron, Ferdinand, Van Nistelrooy but they could also keep world class players like Scholes and Giggs (well, when he was Rooney's age) at the club for life. I thought that was quite obvious in my post.

By the same token they could not afford
Alan Shearer (twice, the first time as far back as 1994)
...........countless others...........
up to last summer and Ronaldhino.

The Fact is, United only ever paid what they could afford, unlike countless other clubs who over stretched their budget. The handled their money well unlike countless other clubs. Their popularity, then their success meant they had more money than most, but the club isn't (for another twenty days at least) debt free because Sky got on their knees before us, it's because the club was well run.

[Donal81]

Yes they would. His name was John O'Kane and he was a promising full back, just couldn't get Irwin out of the side.

That's different and you know it. I don't know why you bothered writing that, actually. Man Utd would never lose a promising youngster as a result of wages. That was my point, as you well know. If you're going to make points like that, I'm already losing interest in this.

Blackburn offered Roy better terms, he chose United because he wanted to play there. Jesus, at one stage Phil Babb was a record transfer fee for a defender, Stan Collymore too. In any event, who could argue that £3.75 million for Roy Keane wasn't a brilliant signing.

What's that got to do with it? They had the money to buy him and continue to pay his wages, that's my point...

By the same token they could not afford Alan Shearer (twice, the first time as far back as 1994)...........countless others...........up to last summer and Ronaldhino.

Don't know about that. Fergie himself said that the only reason Man Utd didn't get Ronaldinho was because Peter Kenyon didn't do his job. Shearer wanted to play for Newcastle, end of story.

[Dan K]

United kept a wage cap a lot longer than most other Premiership clubs did (and way way longer than other big European clubs did). They lost players because other clubs could offer better terms. It's only in the last four to five years that they've gotten stupid with wages.

No reason to check facts though when Lazy Fcuking "journalism" can still sell newspapers.

And how high was that cap?

Even now, about 5 or 6 years after the cap was lifted, how many teams pay that amount to ONE player, let alone a squad?

United are a PLC (well, were). If you were happy enough to enjoy the benefits that came from being a PLC, you can't really complain about the flipside.

And FWIW, United could afford Shearer. It was Shearer that turned down United to go to Newcastle, not Blackburn.

[ColinR]

United are a PLC (well, were). If you were happy enough to enjoy the benefits that came from being a PLC, you can't really complain about the flipside.

the whole happy to be a plc is a myth. most united fans are glad that the club's board has run the club well over the last 15 years but that sould be the way of every board - be it plc, supporters trust, private company, or a martin edwards/ doug ellis type ownership.

the benifit of united going plc was also relatively small - i'm not sure the exact figures, maybe 10/20 million, which apparently was needed to pay for making the stretford end all seater. it also created a vehicle for martin edwards to make a fortune by selling off his shares bit by bit.

unfortunately back then, the average person/fans knowledge of the stock market was no where near today's understanding. unfortunately, it wasn't until murdoch & co came calling in 1998, that united fans got into gear. even still, shareholders united has only grown relatively strong in the last twelve months or so - which unfortunately has proved too little too late

[hamish]

Just a thought passed through what's left of my mind but, yeah, Glazer now has control and Edwards had control etc etc but what's control IF United fans carry out their threat and boycott Old Trafford, sponsors, shops and all money making avenues. IF, repeat IF, a boycott is even 40% successful then Glazer is up to his neck in debt and won't be able to service the payments owed.
Y'know a club can be listed on the stock market, can be a private company, can be anything it wants, but if the fans don't come and buy, then the club is nothing.
Someone said that fans are, by their SUPPORT, the most important sponsors. If United fans are really serious, then carry out the boycott. The club might crash but there might be a possibility that a prospective new owner might have to be a genuine football fan AND provide the supporters with a say in the control of the club. OK OK a long shot but could happen.
What do you think??
I'm afraid that if current fans boycott there'll be thousands of others only too happy to take their places in Old Trafford as some other footieperson has already stated.
Not very optimistic about the whole situation and I'm not even a United fan.

[Macy]

unfortunately back then, the average person/fans knowledge of the stock market was no where near today's understanding. unfortunately, it wasn't until murdoch & co came calling in 1998, that united fans got into gear. even still, shareholders united has only grown relatively strong in the last twelve months or so - which unfortunately has proved too little too late

The club floated in 1991, right around season ticket/LMTB renewal time, and just after the Cup Winners Cup Final. The main beneficiary was Fartin Martin.

Peter Kenyon was only there a few years, and whilst he can claim credit for some good sponsorship deals, he was terrible in the transfer market. Mind you, you'd wonder now whether that was deliberate seeing as several of the signings he fooked up for United ended up at Chelsea.

ColinR - IMUSA started a share club way back, that's how I got my shares. Shareholders United only came into existence around Murdoch, and IMUSA were happy to hand over the share buying reigns.

As already stated, Sky only brought shares in United around the bid. They weren't shareholders when the premiership started. Sky own or owned shares in several clubs (as do ITV).

As ever the ABU's think they know everything about United, when infact they just lazily believe the myths.

Role on FC United, and the true spirit of United can be reclaimed. If MUFC die, I wonder what all the obsessive myth peddlers will do then? They might actually concentrate on supporting their own team instead of bullshítting about another club...