*Official* English Football Season 2014-15

[sledger]

Shame really. Even as a Liverpool fan, circa 2003, Arsenal v United was always the game I looked forward to each season more than any other.

As an Arsenal fan it was probably the game I looked forward to the least tbh. It was almost always an absolutely agonising watch, and I remember the result being bad more often than it was good.

 

[Uppercut]

There's no reason for LVG to be fielding such a weak side. You guys aren't in Europe and you're playing Burnley on the weekend FFS.

Our last game was on Sunday, so if any of those guys play again the injury risk is huge, and with the number of players we have out we can't afford to lose any more.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think it's irrelevant ultimately. Who cares if you're the highest in the year if you're the 2nd highest in several years? You're the 3rd highest spenders in the EPL era (after City and Chelsea) despite the fact that for the majority of it you already had a core of players responsible for much of those titles and who didn't cost you anything. Or you built the bulk of your side before the figures got astronomically inflated which helps you further in these comparisons.

And between 92-98, you only had a negative net spend for two seasons. Just lumping the seasons together to come to a net negative is disingenuous and that's being kind. As you admit later, you spent a ****load of money just the season after. What's stops you considering the net spend for 92-99?

It is all irrelevant, indeed, in fact I'm not sure how I got into this. Criticisms of the Glazers are valid/invalid irrespective of what we spent in the 90s. They are also mostly not criticisms of our lack of spending, because we have spent more with them than we did beforehand.

It is just a real annoyance of mine that we spent a lot in the 90s, when it was the 00s when we spent a lot. Stats that we have spent the most other than City and Chelsea across the whole PL era miss the point. We have spent amongst the most in the 2000s is the reason for that. We never did in the 1990s, with one exception. You could argue that we spent more in relative terms in the 80s than the 90s actually tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Van Gaal Out!

 

[Ikki]

 

[Furball]

Our last game was on Sunday, so if any of those guys play again the injury risk is huge, and with the number of players we have out we can't afford to lose any more.

In fairness he's probably forgotten what it's like to play regular midweek football.

 

[GIMH]

Our last game was on Sunday, so if any of those guys play again the injury risk is huge, and with the number of players we have out we can't afford to lose any more.

I was about to call bull**** on this then I realised it's Tuesday. That is strange you only getting two days between games. Presumably you'd have had the right to request a Wednesday fixture though? Not sure how it works.

Not sure the injury risk is 'huge' mind. Lesser athletes do 2 in 3 days a couple of a times a season at Xmas and Easter. But the general point is fair, even if I think it's a bit short sighted as a trophy could go a long way for Van Gaal and this was one of only two he had any chance of this season

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Van Gaal Out!

Bring back the Moyesiah.

 

[Ikki]

I was about to call bull**** on this then I realised it's Tuesday. That is strange you only getting two days between games. Presumably you'd have had the right to request a Wednesday fixture though? Not sure how it works.

Not sure the injury risk is 'huge' mind. Lesser athletes do 2 in 3 days a couple of a times a season at Xmas and Easter. But the general point is fair, even if I think it's a bit short sighted as a trophy could go a long way for Van Gaal and this was one of only two he had any chance of this season

I had the same reaction. He's also right that they've got too many injuries to risk anyone else. But damn, this is terrible even with your 2nd string.

 

[Tangles]

What would be the financial impact if we, say, didn't qualify for Europe for three or four years? £200m in 18 months seems like a lot, and if anything we've got worse in that time. Doing a Leeds?

Depends on the loan payment schedule. They came in with a plan to increase worth and sell for a profit within 4 years. That's why the original hedge loans were set to that time scale. If they saw a downward trend that couldn't be fixed they would try to get out with minimum damage to themselves. Normally in a LBO a corporate raider would sell assets to generate cash. So the players and the stadium would go first.

Can't see it happening though. I can see us getting top 7 but only they know what is needed.

Think I read the Adidas deal has an out clause for Adidas based on multiple years out of Europe not including the current one.

 

[Cabinet96]

Lol at the results tonight.

Giroud now looking at 5 months out. Auspicious start for Shad. 3 games, 3 injuried.

4 in 4. Koscielny in the shield, Sanago v Palace. Arteta in the CL, Giroud v Everton.

Important players as well.

 

[Pothas]

Well a Bees player scored two goals against Man Utd tonight.

Less fun at GP, first time I have ever seen us play Fulham and to lose was a bit of a shame but **** it is only the League cup and we left out a few key players.

 

[social]

I suppose one could argue we reaped back what we spent - Cole's transfer was followed 6 months later by Ince and Kancheskis going for over £10m between them.

But you are right, we've always had money, and spent it when needs, even before we became a PLC we were still 'Moneybags Utd'. But thats because we were a well run business both before and after flotation, and nigh on always topped the attendance charts so had the money coming in over the gate. The big hatred of the Glazers is the fact they destroyed that model instantly and saddled the 'richest club in the world' with huge debts.

The reality of it all, which most fans refuse to see, is its made very little difference from a football point of view - We still sign the players the manager wants, folowing the same philosophy to negotiations (we have to be tough in that people will want more from Man Utd because quite simply they can get away with it - the player wants the move, the club know they are a talent and are not in any hurry to sell, and we've got the resources to pay - so clubs will hold out for more).
The stadium continues to be developed, as does the amenities around the site. People get held up over the clubs debt but on the whole, its not had an impact on the club.

This is pretty much my point

From what I can see, the Glazers haven't held back United through lack of investment so the fact that 700 mill or whatever has gone to debt repayment is largely irrelevant from a footballing perspective

If anything, the Glazers should be pissed off that so much of the recent investment has been wasted

 

[Uppercut]

I was about to call bull**** on this then I realised it's Tuesday. That is strange you only getting two days between games. Presumably you'd have had the right to request a Wednesday fixture though? Not sure how it works.

Not sure the injury risk is 'huge' mind. Lesser athletes do 2 in 3 days a couple of a times a season at Xmas and Easter. But the general point is fair, even if I think it's a bit short sighted as a trophy could go a long way for Van Gaal and this was one of only two he had any chance of this season

Yeah it seems really unnecessary to have the two games in three days at this stage of the season. I don't think anyone minded much, though.

There's a whole load of research on it that I've never bothered with, but basically the injury risk is much higher when you play your second match in a week.

I don't think we had much chance of winning the Carling Cup anyway. We're really terrible at the moment. I reckon of the other Prem teams only QPR have been worse in their opening two games.

 

[Tangles]

This is pretty much my point

From what I can see, the Glazers haven't held back United through lack of investment so the fact that 700 mill or whatever has gone to debt repayment is largely irrelevant from a footballing perspective

If anything, the Glazers should be pissed off that so much of the recent investment has been wasted

Ronaldo says hi. We have no way of knowing what would have happened. Some of us care about more than the football. They took a healthy club and loaded it with debt to line their own pockets. They did that to the club I have followed since I was a boy. It's despicable and unforgivable. My clubs future now rests on the whim of a bottom line.

 

[Tangles]

LVG mentioned after the game that Di Maria can play inside and out like Robben. That make me think he plays in the front 3 like Robben does for Holland. Don't have the same caliber midfield or defenders though.

 

[Pothas]

So this Falcao to Arsenal thing is rubbish right?

 

[social]

Ronaldo says hi. We have no way of knowing what would have happened. Some of us care about more than the football. They took a healthy club and loaded it with debt to line their own pockets. They did that to the club I have followed since I was a boy. It's despicable and unforgivable. My clubs future now rests on the whim of a bottom line.

A number of problems with this statement

Firstly, SAF himself has claimed that the Glazers never denied him funds for any player so the complaints that the Ronaldo money wasn't reinvested in the squad is irrelevant

Secondly, many EPL teams are "clubs" in name only - they are businesses where the fans are paying customers

Thirdly, it is well known that other parties had the opportunity to buy the business but were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons

However, whether the ultimate owner was a Glazer, Murdoch or supporters group, it was always going to be saddled with debt because that is how these things are funded

IMO, MU supporters owe some level of gratitude to the Glazers as there have been plenty of worse owners than them (e.g. look at Murdoch's history of sports club ownership in Oz)

 

[cpr]

A number of problems with this statement

Firstly, SAF himself has claimed that the Glazers never denied him funds for any player so the complaints that the Ronaldo money wasn't reinvested in the squad is irrelevant

Secondly, many EPL teams are "clubs" in name only - they are businesses where the fans are paying customers

Thirdly, it is well known that other parties had the opportunity to buy the business but were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons

However, whether the ultimate owner was a Glazer, Murdoch or supporters group, it was always going to be saddled with debt because that is how these things are funded

IMO, MU supporters owe some level of gratitude to the Glazers as there have been plenty of worse owners than them (e.g. look at Murdoch's history of sports club ownership in Oz)

I'd agree with your first two points, and your previous post.

However I don't know about others having the opportunity as such, sure there was plenty of faffing about by some going close to 30% ownership, but none really had the funds to buy outright and maintain the club, or the real inclination to, unless they did exactly what Glazer did - and I don't think any of them wanted to do that. Unless you are talking about the Murdoch bid, which thankfully did hit a wall before it really got going.

As for the 'always going to be saddled with debt', again I dont know - Its not like the club had any debt before hand, and actually holds more non football assets than football ones. I've not seen another takeover at this level where the owner has bought the club in effect by re-mortgaging the club to pay for it, then not invested any money into it - pretty much every other chairman has pumped some of their money into the club post takeover. Though I suppose we are the victim of our own success in that we've not needed any extra investment like that for at least 25 years (thinking back to the nearly sale to Michael Knighton), in reality I don't think even Louis Edwards had to put money in very often, let alone Martin.

 

[social]

I'd agree with your first two points, and your previous post.

However I don't know about others having the opportunity as such, sure there was plenty of faffing about by some going close to 30% ownership, but none really had the funds to buy outright and maintain the club, or the real inclination to, unless they did exactly what Glazer did - and I don't think any of them wanted to do that. Unless you are talking about the Murdoch bid, which thankfully did hit a wall before it really got going.

As for the 'always going to be saddled with debt', again I dont know - Its not like the club had any debt before hand, and actually holds more non football assets than football ones. I've not seen another takeover at this level where the owner has bought the club in effect by re-mortgaging the club to pay for it, then not invested any money into it - pretty much every other chairman has pumped some of their money into the club post takeover. Though I suppose we are the victim of our own success in that we've not needed any extra investment like that for at least 25 years (thinking back to the nearly sale to Michael Knighton), in reality I don't think even Louis Edwards had to put money in very often, let alone Martin.

Only one that I can think of is Hicks & Gillett

Very much a product of the time as it would be virtually impossible to do today