Manchester United Teamtalk/Transfer/Gossip 23/24 - [New Thread Available]

jimmytwotimes 2013

Once on the pitch a sit-in would have been very visually striking. They would have been forcibly removed at some point which would have made serious headlines.

Lithium93_

Peter Schmeichel has added his 2 cents about yesterday into the mix..

https://www.otbsports.com/soccer/idiots-and-troublemakers-peter-schmeichel-on-old-trafford-protesters-1189042?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1620064424

Headshot

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Peter Schmeichel has added his 2 cents about yesterday into the mix..

https://www.otbsports.com/soccer/idiots-and-troublemakers-peter-schmeichel-on-old-trafford-protesters-1189042?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1620064424

Someone wants a job at utd.

ceegee

Headshot wrote: »

Someone wants a job at utd.

Has a job at Man Utd. Can take whatever any club ambassadors have to say with a pinch of salt.

Lithium93_

Headshot wrote: »

Someone wants a job at utd.

That's how I read it, especially the last 3 paragraphs, when he speaks about the Glazers.

Headshot

ceegee wrote: »

Has a job at Man Utd. Can take whatever any club ambassadors have to say with a pinch of salt.

He has?

That explains a whole alot....

Shameful by peter tbh

Lithium93_

It's hilarious how a Liverpool legend in Jamie Carragher can clearly see (after researching) what's wrong with the Glazers ownership, yet a United legend in Schmeichel can't.

Or he can see, but chooses to ignore it.

El Gato De Negocios

jayo26 wrote: »

A breakdown of what Jamie carragher said tonight on MNF vor once i think he got it spot on.

"If you're going to speak about something and you're going to speak about something passionately - and you can have your opinion - back it up with the facts.

"This is nothing to do with where Manchester United are in the league. Yes, there's been a decline, obviously, but this campaign has been going on for a long, long time, from when Manchester United were very, very successful.

"So let's not accuse Manchester United fans of just throwing the toys out the pram because they're not competing with [Manchester] City or in the Champions League, whatever it may be. That is absolute nonsense."

the overall feeling all over uk football is support for united fans while condemning the few louts that went too far. Its only on one or two days online areas and a couple uneducated pundits that people are trying to pedal the results as been the motivation behind it.

It's very very obvious. The only ones that can't (ie refuse to) see it are those blinded by bitterness like Souness.

EltonJohn69

Lithium93_ wrote: »

It's hilarious how a Liverpool legend in Jamie Carragher can clearly see (after researching) what's wrong with the Glazers ownership, yet a United legend in Schmeichel can't.

Or he can see, but chooses to ignore it.

Ex Man City keep Peter Schmeichel.

beakerjoe

Lithium93_ wrote: »

It's hilarious how a Liverpool legend in Jamie Carragher can clearly see (after researching) what's wrong with the Glazers ownership, yet a United legend in Schmeichel can't.

Or he can see, but chooses to ignore it.

Hes on the payroll, his opinion is biased.

Anyone with a clear grasp of the facts can see who the bad guys are here.

S.M.B.

I don't see Schmeichel's comments as that controversial. Maybe they're a little pessimistic when it comes to the level of change that could happen but it's very difficult to know what options are realistically available right now.

It's going to be very difficult to undo some of the decisions made within the game over the past 25 years.

Lord TSC

Borussia Dortmund will be open to sell Sancho in the summer if the ‘right bid’ will arrive, after one year ago he was one step away from joining #MUFC.BVB will be asking less than €120m to let Sancho leave this year - but... no late bids at the end of the window. (Fabrizio Romano on twitter)

(When asked what the right price is) around €85/90m. But we’re in May... let’s see what they’ll ask in June/July. For sure, less than €120m this year!

StringerBell

Fitz* wrote: »

You can't just break into a stadium the day of a game to purposely get it postponed and expect no punishment IMO.

The PL rules state that fan actions can result in punishments up to and including the match opponents being awarded the points.

Bring awarded the points would not be the punishment I would give. But the original question I asked to all Man United fans in this thread was what punishment should be given and by the looks of things, everyone thinks the club and fans should get off Scot free. Do what ye want, when ye want and how ye want. No reprocussions.

Breaking & entry?
Stealing?
Cutting a police officer with a broken bottle?
Postponing a match?

Maybe I read it wrong, but it seemed to me you asked what the appropriate punishment is that the club WILL get, and since I think they WILL receive little to no punishment that I had answered it. Apologies if the answer wasn't what you wanted.

Your gripe seems to be with individuals rather than the club too so maybe you just phrased your question wrong?

False Prophet

Lord TSC wrote: »

Borussia Dortmund will be open to sell Sancho in the summer if the ‘right bid’ will arrive, after one year ago he was one step away from joining #MUFC.BVB will be asking less than €120m to let Sancho leave this year - but... no late bids at the end of the window. (Fabrizio Romano on twitter)

(When asked what the right price is) around €85/90m. But we’re in May... let’s see what they’ll ask in June/July. For sure, less than €120m this year!

Before the super league and protests i thought decent chance of ole being backed to close the gap. But now who knows, glaziers might splash on a marquee player to keep fans onside, alternatively they might just hire some better ground security instead and pocket the rest.
This turmoil can't help ole anyway in trying to get players to sign anyway.

Hodors Appletart

keep fans onside?

what fans are currently onside to be kept there?

paulbok

I think this was posted before but the updated details are well worth another look given the circumstances.
Analysis of the takeover cists, debt etc.
1.1bn taken out of the club since the takeover between interest, financing and dividends

Link

Depressing.

El Gato De Negocios

paulbok wrote: »

I think this was posted before but the updated details are well worth another look given the circumstances.
Analysis of the takeover cists, debt etc.
1.1bn taken out of the club since the takeover between interest, financing and dividends

Link

Depressing.

bUt ThE nEt SpEnD iS oN pAr WiTh ThE oIl BaCkEd ClUbS.

IncognitoMan

False Prophet wrote: »

Before the super league and protests i thought decent chance of ole being backed to close the gap. But now who knows, glaziers might splash on a marquee player to keep fans onside, alternatively they might just hire some better ground security instead and pocket the rest.
This turmoil can't help ole anyway in trying to get players to sign anyway.

Year after year the evidence is there. The Glazers only spend big when Champions League is missed to get back into it.

I don't think they see a difference between 2nd and 1st. It does not concern them.

BKtje

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

bUt ThE nEt SpEnD iS oN pAr WiTh ThE oIl BaCkEd ClUbS.

What point are you trying to make exactly? In gross spend the club is also in the top three.

Net spend is a metric which gives certain information same as every other metric (including gross spend). Put them all together you get a clear(er) picture, individually it says very little.

I really don't understand the fascination with one metric over another as all need to be used to really understand something..... as was done by the twitter post above. That said the twitter thread above is also lacking some information. It would be nice (or perhaps shocking!) to compare the stewardship of the Glazers vs the previous owners.

I doubt that it would compare favorably but would give more information of how much they have leeched vs previous owners (who also didn't spend enormously vs the revnue of the club iirc).

Drumpot

paulbok wrote: »

I think this was posted before but the updated details are well worth another look given the circumstances.
Analysis of the takeover cists, debt etc.
1.1bn taken out of the club since the takeover between interest, financing and dividends

Link

Depressing.

That is such a damning review , think its mostly between 2010-2020. .

- Player sales is one of worst in EPL (player recruitment has been a joke)

- Net spend on players betweem 2010 and now was £1 billion, interest on loans was £700 million (what could £700 million done - new stadium, stronger squad ?)

- MUFC revenue has tripled but LFC and MCFC have outstripped them

- Zero revenue growth last 4 years (this is supposed to be what they actually are good at)

- Broadcasting income is behind Spurs, Liverpool, Chelsea and City

- Matchday revenue growth is less then that of all the other "super 6"

- Wage bill just below City but should of been more then enough to be challanging for leagues/titles (United can compete with City)

- £1.6 billion cashflow that could of been used for team or stadium enhancements has mostly gone on interest payments on loans, loan repayments and dividens

- Uniteds spending on infrastructure £118mil in last 11 years. Less then spurs, city, Liverpool, Brighton, Arsenal

- Owners providing finance to team is below City, chelsea, Villa, Everton, Brighton, Leicester. But since the actual finance provided was by issuing shares, it wasnt actually the Glazers financing the funds at all.

- Interest payments £496 million, nearest is Arsenal on £140, Spurs £91 (to build stadium), City £54 and then lower as you go along

- Dividends to owners £122m , next west brom £27m, Leeds £1m, nobody else after that

- Loan repayments highest in league - £253m, then Arsenal £211 (but have new stadium)

- Despite loan repayments, debt has remained around £550m (not paying off loans, just restructuring)


You cannot summarise the ownership into "net spend", thats a disingenuous way of viewing their tenure. Its amazing how much the Net spend stuff is being promoted and highlighted at the expense of all the other information that paints a completely different picture. Its almost like somebody is pushing for the Glazers to look better then they are for some reason . . Why would that be happening I wonder . .

El Gato De Negocios

BKtje wrote: »

What point are you trying to make exactly? In gross spend the club is also in the top three.

Net spend is a metric which gives certain information same as every other metric (including gross spend). Put them all together you get a clear(er) picture, individually it says very little.

I really don't understand the fascination with one metric over another as all need to be used to really understand something..... as was done by the twitter post above. That said the twitter thread above is also lacking some information. It would be nice (or perhaps shocking!) to compare the stewardship of the Glazers vs the previous owners.

I doubt that it would compare favorably but would give more information of how much they have leeched vs previous owners (who also didn't spend enormously vs the revnue of the club iirc).

My point is that a number of people in other threads have been obfuscating the protests and the reasons behind them by pointing out the money that has been spent since the Glazers took over.

BKtje

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

My point is that a number of people in other threads have been obfuscating the protests and the reasons behind them by pointing out the money that has been spent since the Glazers took over.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't read the other threads

Whatsisname

What the hell.

https://twitter.com/FabrizioRomano/status/1389568671606001672?s=20

secman

Whatsisname wrote: »

What the hell.

https://twitter.com/FabrizioRomano/status/1389568671606001672?s=20

From start of next season, Fonseca there till end of season according to BBC

Your Airbag

Just when we thought we'd seen the last of him. He takes over at the end of the season. Surprised he's got a job so quickly and Roma are a relatively big footballing name.

Was sure we'd never see him manage in England again after Spurs or at a really big club but who knows what might happen if he can do a job at Roma.

jimmytwotimes 2013

Your Airbag wrote: »

Just when we thought we'd seen the last of him. He takes over at the end of the season. Surprised he's got a job so quickly and Roma are a relatively big footballing name.

Was sure we'd never see him manage in England again after Spurs or at a really big club but who knows what might happen if he can do a job at Roma.

Italy was likely or eventually the Portuguese job once Ronaldo retires. Italians like the defensive stuff.

El Gato De Negocios

He'll do well there imo.

PhlegmyMoses

paulbok wrote: »

I think this was posted before but the updated details are well worth another look given the circumstances.
Analysis of the takeover cists, debt etc.
1.1bn taken out of the club since the takeover between interest, financing and dividends

Link

Depressing.

This makes my point re: Net Spend being a silly metric to look at for United. The amount the club has spent in loan repayments/dividends is equivalent to the net spend. Net spend should never be a metric that United need to worry about in any serious way and yet here we are.

jayo26

How anyone can say the protest was an failure is laughable. Sky and other news channels analysing the glazers ownership and how much money has been taken out of the club,

its all over the news and been talked about all day.

Lithium93_

jayo26 wrote: »

How anyone can say the protest was an failure is laughable. Sky and other news channels analysing the glazers ownership and how much money has been taken out of the club,

its all over the news and been talked about all day.

Saw something on Twitter earlier, think it Talksport's Simon & Jim, and they were irate, some would say clutching at pearls after what happened on Sunday afternoon. Found the images, linked below as too massive to post.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0ij2XpXoAE241K?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0ij2XvWYAAnQTe?format=jpg&name=large


Hated, Adored, Never Ignored.

paulbok

Drumpot wrote: »

That is such a damning review , think its mostly between 2010-2020. .

...you cannot summarise the ownership into "net spend", thats a disingenuous way of viewing their tenure. Its amazing how much the Net spend stuff is being promoted and highlighted at the expense of all the other information that paints a completely different picture. Its almost like somebody is pushing for the Glazers to look better then they are for some reason . . Why would that be happening I wonder . .

There were a couple of points off that report that caught my attention more that the others and go with a post I made here a day or two ago that the Glazers are not running the business effectively.

1. match day and general revenue growth has stalled, the other big clubs are growing and catching up on our earnings.
2. TV money received is massively behind Liverpool 60m, City 50m & Chelsea 40m. in previous times, even without winning a trophy, United were always either no. 1 or 2 in the tv money earnings.
3. The new main shirt sponsorship deal with teamviever is way less than the previous deal with Chevrolet, 47m a year vs 64m.

For all their love of cash, they are doing a p1$$ poor job of making it.
It was only a matter of time that the lack of success on the pitch began to have an impact off it.
On top of what they are syphoning off for debt, interest payments and dividends, now the club is earning far less that it could be.
That has to be an unsustainable business model, so no wonder they were driving for the ESL, where the money was ringfenced and they had to do F all for it, instead of running the club properly and at least maintaining the earning power we once had, our biggest advantage over everyone else for years.

If they did manage it properly, the club would be more successful,
the casual fans would be happier and the more fickle ones from abroad wouldn't be following other teams now,
more funds would have been available for transfers and spent more wisely,
the debt would be nearly cleared off and the value of the club would be higher,
plans in place for a massive re-haul of Old Trafford
and there would probably still a bit more cash available in the trough to stick their snouts into. :mad:

The Big Easy

secman wrote: »

From start of next season, Fonseca there till end of season according to BBC

Pity would've been some craic playing him in the second leg, less so if they won 4-0 mind!

beno619

Yes also pretty clear that Woodward hasn't done anything too special on the commercial side of the business. It doesn't take a rocket science to sell Manchester United to sponsers ect.

The club would be miles ahead of the rest with that 2 billion invested in infrastructure instead of paying for our owners.

beakerjoe

Poor Git Smalling and Miki.... they cant escape Jose

jayo26

beno619 wrote: »

Yes also pretty clear that Woodward hasn't done anything too special on the commercial side of the business. It doesn't take a rocket science to sell Manchester United to sponsers ect.

The club would be miles ahead of the rest with that 2 billion invested in infrastructure instead of paying for our owners.

Woodward didn't increase the commercial activity of united to benifit the club it fully benifit the glazers and supplimented them.

United were not short of cash before the glazers came along they always spent big and had a higher turnover then most other clubs in Europe.

Nalz

Mkhitaryan

Lithium93_

Fans begin boycott of Manchester United sponsors in anti-Glazer protest.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dda079ee-aced-11eb-bda6-057976012425?shareToken=d78b44869c07755d53a27aacc9f050a7

Anti-Glazer protesters have launched a co-ordinated attack on Manchester United’s sponsors as anger against the club’s American owners continues to grow.

Each of United’s 50-plus sponsors has received a letter from an unnamed fans group, calling on them to terminate their commercial deals with the club. The letter, which comes under the header #NotAPennyMore, warns the sponsors that they are “legitimate targets” due to their association with the Glazers. It says that fans will boycott their goods and seek to undermine their businesses online.

jayo26

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Fans begin boycott of Manchester United sponsors in anti-Glazer protest.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dda079ee-aced-11eb-bda6-057976012425?shareToken=d78b44869c07755d53a27aacc9f050a7

I think the protests will be more effective then a few letters.

Drumpot

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Fans begin boycott of Manchester United sponsors in anti-Glazer protest.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dda079ee-aced-11eb-bda6-057976012425?shareToken=d78b44869c07755d53a27aacc9f050a7

Don’t want to look like a know all and say I suggested it ages ago .. But ...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114426268&postcount=9767

They rely heavily on Sponcorship partners, if there was enough of a shift against glazers , they would act. Just like fifa finally did agaisnt Blatter when Sponcors saw the wind blowing against him and threatened to pull out of world cups. Again, it’s a sad reflection of the sport that sponsors have more sway then fans. But our fans have given up , that’s why it’s been so easy for the Glazers to do what they have been doing. I’ve given up hope aswell, I’m not judging our fans from an ivory tower, I just find it so frustrating considering the financial muscle of the club that the owners can’t even get the club anywhere near a title challange or even a CL. It’s actually criminal how badly they are wasting this advantage.

I suggested it ages ago.... I do think I’m a know all and can’t help myself....:P

xtal191

https://twitter.com/theutdjournal/status/1389620977881944065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1389620977881944065%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Drumpot

jayo26 wrote: »

I think the protests will be more effective then a few letters.

Why not do both?

If they hit the right note with sponcors it could get very ugly fast for the glazers... like I said in my previous post, remember how quickly sponcors turned on fifa , I still can’t believe Blatter is gone.

Headshot

jayo26 wrote: »

I think the protests will be more effective then a few letters.

Lets hit the ****ers from every angle

maximum pressure

Drumpot

The funniest thing about this anti glazer stuff is that all they had to do was nothing. Just keep pillaging the club and doing a crap job and nothing would of happened. But no, they thought they were bulletproof and could do whatever they wanted and railroad this super league.

This could turn out to be the biggest ultimate backfire ever....

beno619

jayo26 wrote: »

Woodward didn't increase the commercial activity of united to benifit the club it fully benifit the glazers and supplimented them.

United were not short of cash before the glazers came along they always spent big and had a higher turnover then most other clubs in Europe.

100%

My point was our commercial success over the past 16 years would have been achievable without the Glazers and Woodward.

Loafing Oaf

Seems there will be 2000 United fans allowed in to the Europa League final, assuming we get there ( and the protest the other day hasn't given UEFA the willies).

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11959/12294156/europa-league-uefa-confirms-up-to-9-500-fans-can-watch-final-in-gdansk-after-approval-from-polish-authorities

Headshot

https://streamable.com/kmarnv

A nasty piece of work and imagine a Liverpool fan sticking up for the utd fans instead of a past player

disgraceful carry on

DM_7

2005 all over again, back then fans asked Vodafone to 'hang up on Glazer'

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2005/0726/65842-vodafone/

Manchester United fans opposed to the takeover of their club by Malcolm Glazer today urged sponsor Vodafone to 'hang up' on the billionaire businessman.

Protesters at the mobile giant's annual meeting claimed Vodafone was at risk of being associated with a 'severely tainted brand'.

They said Vodafone's public image would suffer if Mr Glazer's leadership of the football club proved unsuccessful.

Opponents to Mr Glazer's takeover of the club earlier this year have vowed to boycott Manchester United merchandise in a bid to devalue the brand. They have also said they will stop people buying anything related to the sponsorship of the club.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/4547093.stm

By November 05 it was announced that they would hang up on Glazer.

PARlance

As someone who has said Icardi might be a decent signing before... I take it all back.

Headshot

PARlance wrote: »

As someone who has said Icardi might be a decent signing before... I take it all back.

He wouldnt even be a decent signing before.

A trouble maker who just not that good

jayo26

Headshot wrote: »

He wouldnt even be a decent signing before.

A trouble maker who just not that good

Bit of john terry about him.