Fergie feeling he could win without spending huge amounts of money was responsible for what you call the 'value years' and given we won the league for 3 of the 5 years after that and finished second by 1 point and GD in the other two, he was right. The debt is also irrelevant, we paid dividends before and we've been able to spend huge amounts regardless whereas before Fergie kept having transfers blocked before the Glazers.

As owners, they've been ideal. Understood the growing importance of the commercial aspect of football and left the football side alone.

Of course it's relevant because it didn't exist before the takeover. Any debt we did have certainly wasn't on the scale of what we had post 2005.

Anyway I've spent enough time arguing about the takeover and getting grief for my opinions on it to go over it all again on here along with jibes about FC Utd.

We are in a good position now because the Glazers have done a very good job in a commercial sense and the debt is much reduced, 300 million or thereabouts now I think.

Like I said, i'm happy with the ownership now but i'm not going to paint it as that has always been the case.

Oh dear this is hard.... I agree. Anyone got a slice of humble pie? Ahhh, sod it. Just give me the whole thing. We've got the manager most of us wanted and the players too. If it doesn't work now, it's not down to the board or owners.


It truly has.


Forgot the value years, what about the backing they gave SAF during the wilderness years? Even though I've often doubted them at times I have always respected their calm during that period. Most other owners would have got rid.

My point was that we already had to pay money out of the club, it increased but so did the revenue and that increased by a lot more making the debt an irrelevance.


Think that underlines how hands off they've been, they didn't panic and interfere but instead trusted the football people to get the club back on top. Same thing they're doing now.

There was never any legitimate argument against the Glazers in truth. It was all conspiracy and nonsense led by extremist fans' groups. Every charge against them, every single one, has been proven irrefutably false.

Extremist fan groups?

Steady on now

I've been watching FC Utd several times and I can assure you the fans at the ground are nothing of the sort.

Of course there are a few tossers but no club is immune from them whatever the level.

When I say extremist fans' groups I mean looking at the behaviour of MUST. They were in bed with the 'Red Knights' anticipating some kind of role under RK ownership. So they had a personal vested interest in the RKs taking over. What happened then was a concerted effort to undermine the owners and the club to aid the RK takeover.

This included lying about the clubs finances, scaremongering, inventing stories and anything they could do in order to undermine the club, even if that meant damaging the club, in order so their mates could gain control and they could have influence.

It was completely self-serving and I'm surprised they got away with it. They were willing to risk the club just so they could gain influence, all whilst railing against the 'dangers' of the Glazer ownership, when every single indicator suggested the Glazer's have been the best owners the club have ever had.

Even looking at ticket prices, they increased under Edwards/PLC far more than they did under Glazer, even with the early year increases. Yet still it was peddled that they were increasing ticket prices unfairly and unprecedentedly.

If you look at what that gang have claimed about the owners it's hard to find a single thing that was remotely true.

You obviously were not a shareholder before their takeover...........

Do you mean actual shareholders or fans who had little certificates for their 0.000004% share and considered themselves 'shareholders'

The actual shareholders were quite happy, hence why they sold to the Glazers when they made the offer.

The big shareholders sold for the money, yes and the financial institutions could also make even more money with the fees and commissions. Those of us who held just a few thousand pounds of shares were not so enthusiastic. Still I did make thirty times my original stake.

I know how the referendum remainers feel.

The owners apart from taking huge amounts of money out of the club, have actually been quite ideal owners, none of the forcing players onto a manager (see Schevchenko at Chelsea as an example of this), but when necessary making the funds available to a manager to get the player(s) he thinks would be beneficial at the time.

You can't really grumble too much about them, as there are far worse people in charge of clubs out there.

So not a real problem with the owners then, just an excuse to crowbar into the thread how much money you've made personally.

Spot on, and as others above point out, not a shred of evidence to support what others who cleared off to form FC United feared might happen as a result.

Anyone criticising the owners are doing it for reactionary mob mentality reasons and not with any actual logic or sense.

Throughout their entire time at the club they have proven, yes proven, that they will support whichever manager we had with whatever funds he needed. So fergie didnt spend during this non existent "value years" period not because of the owners saying their is no money in the pot but because he wanted players he felt he could work with. Only a moron could criticise that considering his record.

Other clubs would give their right arm for owners that have stayed in the background, never interfered, supported each manager with huge amounts of money and increased the commercial value of the club by huge amounts.

Why do you care though? You don't go to games or have a season ticket that's been hiked up so it shouldn't even register on your radar. It's like getting arsey over Richard Branson taking money out of his company. It means sod all.

I don't think anyone has any issue with the way they have conducted themselves when it comes to allowing the manager the freedom to get on with the day to day job, player recruitment for example. The money has certainly been there of late but why did we miss out on so many targets that we were linked with during the 'value' years?

Was it down to Fergie being a stubborn old goat and genuinely being happy with what he had or financial restrictions at the time. The debt was a big issue then and we weren't the financial juggernaut we are now.

Just because they are spending now doesn't mean they could do so then.

It has even been mentioned by various pundits that Manchester United now have the quality of players more befitting of a Manchester United team than previously.

Can anyone seriously tell me that they were happy with the players we bought following the Ronaldo sale? Just because Fergie said he was happy with the squad doesn't mean I have to agree.

As for the moron suggestion, just because you are happy to accept that Fergie wanted players he could work with rather than that there was no money in the pot doesn't mean anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

Bang on.

Glazers are the best owners we could hope for. Huge, record-breaking investment and complete lack of interest in day to day running of club. Other clubs have huge investment but they also have very hands-on owners.

I could also level the same accusation at you. Why do you care so much that I take issue with it?

It doesn't impact on you. I have a right to feel that way if I so wish just because I'm not a season ticket holder doesn't make me any less of a fan or have the right to have an opinion on it even if it doesn't fall into line with the majority on here.

It's like using the 'you're not from Manchester anyway' line.

Not everyone can afford to go watching United, season tickets aren't on my list of priorities having two kids.

Those things are luxuries similiar to having an annual holiday which I can't always afford.

On ticket prices, sourcing this form someone at RedCafe:


So in real terms after 11 years of the evil Glazers, in real terms ticket prices are CHEAPER than when they were before the takeover?


B*stards! *shakes fist*

If I wanted to say what I really thought about Martin Edwards i'd be getting more than a warning from the mods.

you are assuming that every club the player is "linked with" is one they are actually interested in. No idea how old you are but surely you must have been around long enough to see that the vast majority of newspaper links are not actively wanted by the club. Otherwise the only reason you could ever be happy is if they bought every single name ever mentioned in the press.

Ive already stated why they didnt spend as much during these mythical years, they have shown support for every manager and if fergie had gone to them and said i want player x they would support him on that too.




Yes it does. Their detractors might want you to believe it but its bollocks. They have supported every manager they have had with finances.


its already been mentioned that fergie bought the players that HE NEEDED and WANTED. Just because he didnt want to build a team of superstars doesnt mean he wouldnt have been given the finances to do so if he wished.


Im afraid it does if you look at it with even a modicum of objectivity instead of following the mob that have been strangely quiet ever since. Look at it logically.........did fergie win with the players he bought and wanted? Yes, then why do you want him to have spent millions more to achieve the same result?

Some managers need to spend shitloads to win, others dont. You shouldnt be criticising the owners for supporting the managers with whichever way they prefer to work.

But then what's the comparison if not against the PLC or the Edwards family?

Are we to hate the Glazers because they're awful in comparison to our owners in the roaring 20s?

The other way of looking at it is if fergie was building the team he wanted and we had owners that said..."no, youre not spending enough. We want to buy you player x for 50million" then how exactly would that work? How do you think that would have gone down? The same people complaining they wasnt spending millions would be complaining they were interfering.

As someone mentioned earlier, it would make us no different to abramovich forcing players on his managers instead of staying out of it and letting the men they employed do their work.

I don't align myself with this so called mob you refer to and I have a mind of my own and my opinion is my own.

Just because you are happy to accept the value in the market rhetoric doesn't mean that anyone that doesn't buy it is stupid anymore than you are because you do.

Anyway that's all I have to say on the matter because I don't wish to go over old ground as this subject has been done to death on here.

My main issue with the Glazers is the debt that came as a result of the takeover.