Date: 9th May 2011 at 10:30am
Written by:

The Glazers

Do the owners deserve the hatred many Reds have for them?

… is the exact opposite to the opinions of most Manchester United fans.

It has been highly publicised about the amount of debt that the American owners have saddled onto the club and it has also been highly publicised how much the fans are discontent with this situation, more so when the club had to sell their most prized asset Cristiano Ronaldo for a record £80million transfer fee to service the debts. So why does the title say that the Glazers are good for Manchester United?

Nearly 4 league titles in 5 years and 3 Champions League finals in 4 years. That is why. There is absolutely no denying that this is one of the most successful periods in the club’s history.

Surely the Glazers must have something to do with this success right? I put it mainly down to the total freedom given to Sir Alex Ferguson. Unlike most other owners, the Glazers do not interfere. Sir Alex Ferguson does what he wants, when he wants and if he needs to be supported in the transfer market, the Glazers usually give their thumbs up.

When the Glazers took over, our club was still contracted with Kleberson! Clearly they saw the need to rebuild the team and that is exactly what has happened.

They’ve sanctioned quite a lot of big money transfers in their time too. Berbatov was of course a £30.75million signing. Common knowledge. But there have also been 5 other transfers during the Glazers reign that have had a price tag of over £15million, namely Carrick, Hargreaves, Anderson, Nani and Valencia. Some may argue that this has been funded by the departure of former World Player of the Year Cristiano Ronaldo but the claims from the management is that this money is still in the bank waiting to be spent, hopefully on Ronaldo (one can dream).

Nevertheless buying a whole team of Joleon Lescotts for stupid amounts like £24million isn’t the Manchester United way and never will be. Manchester United is a club of values, traditions and hard work and so having players like Lescott who are almost mercenary is not what I would like to see at the club ever. Having a rich billionaire owner who imprints his lack of footballing knowledge all over the club, a la Abramovich, just wouldn’t cut it for me.

At least the way that Manchester United are currently spending money means we sign decent human beings who join us for the prestige of being at the biggest and the best club in the world rather than following the money. Players who join us come for the trophies, the achievements, not the bank balance. It is clear to see that our super signing Javier Hernandez is probably one of the most humble and grateful human beings in the world.

Chris Smalling, another revelation in the centre of our defence doesn’t look like a player who will ever demand stupid sums of money! If Bébé does somehow become the best player in the world, I’m pretty sure he won’t be giving any ultimatums on wage demands either. In fact he’d probably still go back to his orphanage to stay there as he has done from time to time this season.
I’d rather we sign these kinds of players with massive potential and teach them the Manchester United way than signing unproven players such as Lescott and Dzeko, who are basically half way through their career and have won nothing in their life, who come to the club automatically on a 6 figure a week sum to sit on the bench.

Maybe the Glazer family doesn’t have that much going for them in that the Manchester United faithful want them out but surely they do deserve more credit than they have been given. Surely nearly 4 Premiership titles in 5 years and 3 Champions League finals (more finals than we had got to in our history before the Glazers came to our club) in 4 years has warranted some kind of praise for the unpopular owners?

Or would be rather have extremely rich power craving owners like Roman Abramovich whose impatience with managers has probably cost his club success in the past few years since the team has to learn a new philosophy or way of playing every time a new manager comes in. For me the Glazers are nearly the perfect owners in that they stay out of the footballing side of things, and for me it is this that has bought along most of our success, but of course the finances let them down.

Have I gone in off the deep end or is there actually some merit to my seemingly outrageous point of view? Feel free to comment below.



18 responses to “The Glazers Are Good For Manchester United”

  1. jose says:

    Fair play for coming out and saying this. I’v been of the belief for a while that it would be to the detriment of their investment to let the club deteriorate in any way, therefore it is in the owners interest to have a strong successful team. They did put the debt onto the club but this i’m sure was more economical, reducing the pre-tax profits therefore reducing tax paid. but as with the rest of the readers i look on with interest as to who we sign this summer, or hopefully they are nearly wrapped up as we speak like Hernandez was,

  2. JJ says:

    The test is whether the money appears for a big midfielder + GK.

  3. TT says:

    Why does it have to be a choice between a Glazer style owner and an Abromovich one? Surely this should be a comparison between when we were publicly owned, by the fans, and now. Glazers are not benevolent and their hands off approach with SAF is opportunistic, not credit worthy. They are reliant on milking as much money out of the loyal fans in order to make this leveraged buy out work for them financially. The reason the deal was so highly leveraged is because there is more profits to be made from a leveraged deal. The reason they don’t sell at profit now is because the profit would be meagre in comparison to what they stand to make and it would be taxable up front.
    It all depends on whether you want the club run in such a capitalist way or you would rather a more German approach where the fans own the clubs. Although I fear we don’t have the choice now, so it may be the case of the ‘lesser of two evils’, but credit worthy- definately not!

  4. Lavine Martis says:

    Interesting Article.Next transfer period is the test , bringin in wesley sneijder , new goalkeeper and probably another midfield/attack.Its just that the debt is a burden on the club that makes me feel that it might have financial trouble in the future.If Glazer clear the debt and also buy new players then no reason not to support them.The high ticket prices are a trouble for the fans and its not right but still as long as clubs future is intact ,ill be happy.
    Its the future that concerns me and not the present as written in this article.

  5. Ninkynonk says:

    Let me see…..Nani, Berbatov, Giggs, Rooney, Carrick, Gibson, Evra, Evans, Brown, Anderson, Park, Fletcher, O’Shea. All of these players were on the fans “shit-list” at some time during the past 12 months. Should the fans own the club and have a say in team selection or club policy if they do not own shares or assume any risk?….let me think….errr NO!!! I agree that the Glazers should pay down the loans, but the author is right: This club has never earned so much, had so much success, has never had the worldwide appeal etc etc. Stop living in fairyland detractors…just relax and smell the roses..enjoy our successes, and live with reverses as all good fans should. Just one other thing…whater the ownership type or person, they all bring their own problems and advantages. So far I have seen more advantages than problems with the Glazers ownership.

  6. TT says:

    “Should the fans own the club and have a say in team selection or club policy if they do not own shares or assume any risk?….let me think….errr NO!!!”- That statement doesn’t make sense for one. If the fans own the club , i.e through shares, then they do assume risk and have the right to a say on proceedings. Do they make the everyday decisions and pick the team? No, as they hire a principal to do that for them, i.e SAF. This is not something revolutionary it is the way the club was run before and how German clubs are run.
    You can’t credit the Glazers for their hands off approach on the one hand and then attribute our recent successes to them with the other.
    What have been the advantages to the Glazer’s ownership? and success is not an answer as that has been in no part down to the Glazers. We were successful before they arrived and as they take such a ‘hands off’ approach we would have still had the success of recent years.
    To say it is an advantage that we are more financially constrained as we can now sign more ‘genuine’ players is ridiculous.
    The only difference between what the club is now with the Glazers ownership and what we would have been without the Glazers ownership is the level of debt.
    The banks and creditors have more to lose than the Glazers if anything goes wrong financially. Which is probably why they don’t seem overly concerned with the running of the club, especially when things are going well.

  7. jonathan says:

    While I don’t assume the best about the Glazers, I generally agree with this article. For all those who say:”it’s only inspite of the Glazers and because of Fergie”, bear in mind Fergie deals with them and I doubt would repeatedly back them publicly and lie to fans if they were severely restricting him in the transfer market.

    I think the reaction against them primarily boils down to the fact that the Ronaldo money wasn’t immediately re-spent and assumptions were made that they pocketed it. But consider that within a year from the sale, at least half of it has been spent (Valencia, Obertan, Bebe, Chicharito, Smalling) and Fergie tried big money moves for Benzema, Villa and Ozil – as well as one unknown player he openly said was unsuccesful for in January.

    I have little doubt the Glazers have more interest in financial gain than winning trophies. However, I think they’re smart enough to realize winning is a prerequisite to remuneration. With that, they probably trust Fergie who has always built the team in this fashion.