- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Reports - Moyes Out
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:18 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:18 am to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
They were fortunate during the SAF era that they didn't have to spend big to stay competitive at the top. The writing is on the wall to spend now though.
The model is in place. Keep the elite youth academy cranking out players who make the first team or we sell.
Buy 1 or 2 players a year to fill holes.
Go on our usual 8 years or so big spending spree to reload. Which we are coming up on anyway. Moyes isn't the man to trust with that kind of cash.
2
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:21 am to TheOcean
quote:
Pretty simple. When your owners put out shitty products, you stop going to games and stop buying merchandise. If you think the Glazers are good owners, you might want to talk to some Bucs fans.
And yes, they're known for barely spending money.
Im sorry man but winning or losing the NFL is a cash cow. Look at the Bills for example. Shitty team shitty product shitty stadium still turning profit. Once again you just can't run owners out of town.
No need to talk to the Bucs non existent fan base anyway
This post was edited on 4/21/14 at 10:22 am
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:24 am to Anfield Road
quote:
It was only after they bought MUFC that perhaps they took their eye off the ball on this side of the pond.
Well, Man U is only worth slightly more than the Bucs
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:24 am to StraightCashHomey21
Im actually really curious (no banter here) to see how it unfolds this summer... Im definitely Skeptical of this £200 million outlay Ive been reading about... Not just the £ (I've read about your debt, not too knowledgeable about it), but that would be a complete overhaul in one season and you just have to look to Spurs to see how that can potentially be a disaster..
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:27 am to Anfield Road
quote:
Actually, Glazer was a lot better than the previous owner Hugh Culverhouse. Culverhouse was a notorious cheapskate. There was no way the Bucs win a Super Bowl with him in charge. As a LFC-Bucs fan, the change in ownership from Culverhouse to Glazer was like the change from G&H to FSG. It was only after they bought MUFC that perhaps they took their eye off the ball on this side of the pond.
Well, without Mckay the Bucs still don't have a title. But my point was that it's easy to look like good owners when SAF is on the sidelines. I mean, Man U hired a well respected, good manager in Moyes, and we've seen what happened. We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if Man U underspends this summer based on solely on the Glazer's track record w/ TB.
This post was edited on 4/21/14 at 10:28 am
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:27 am to TFTC
quote:
Im actually really curious (no banter here) to see how it unfolds this summer... Im definitely Skeptical of this £200 million outlay Ive been reading about... Not just the £ (I've read about your debt, not too knowledgeable about it), but that would be a complete overhaul in one season and you just have to look to Spurs to see how that can potentially be a disaster..
The debt was b/c the Glazer put their debt on the club books which pissed everyone off b/c United was not in debt. The club actually does not take revenue losses like City or Chelsea. Since the glazer bought United the club has been turning record profits and they have marketed United like the savvy businessmen which got them to this point.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:29 am to StraightCashHomey21
The Telegraph is reporting United's top target will be Klopp (YAY), but German reports say he has around a "zero percent chance" of leaving Dortmund. I doubt that will stop United from at least throwing some money at him.
Simeone and van Gaal are the other replacement options. You know, people with winning experience at a high level (COUGH, COUGH, DAVID).
Simeone and van Gaal are the other replacement options. You know, people with winning experience at a high level (COUGH, COUGH, DAVID).
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:30 am to TheOcean
quote:
We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if Man U underspends this summer based on solely on the Glazer's track record w/ TB.
Man give it up just look at all the players United has bought since the glazers took over.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:31 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
The Telegraph is reporting United's top target will be Klopp (YAY), but German reports say he has around a "zero percent chance" of leaving Dortmund.
Maybe one day he will get sick of the Dortmund model of selling their best players and not spending even close to Bayern.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:31 am to StraightCashHomey21
We'll see in a few months
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:33 am to WarSlamEagle
LVG is the betting favorite.
What about Bielsa?
What about Bielsa?
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:33 am to TheOcean
quote:
We'll see in a few months
You really have no idea what you are talking about. You might be in over your head talking world football.
From 2005 when they bought the team to before buying RVP last year they spent 258 million pounds. Yup their cheap alright. That and the fact the board makes these decisions.
This post was edited on 4/21/14 at 10:36 am
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:35 am to hendersonshands
I would love to see Bielsa get a look. (He's also a journalist's dream hire.)
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:37 am to StraightCashHomey21
Is that an inaccurate statement? Or are you still mad that I said the Glazers are very, very frugal owners (not including Revis). If so, you get upset way too easily.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:38 am to TheOcean
quote:
Is that an inaccurate statement? Or are you still mad that I said the Glazers are very, very frugal owners (not including Revis). If so, you get upset way too easily.
258 million quid. Throw in inflation since they bought the team. Calling them cheap owners is just very ignorant and flat out dumb.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:38 am to StraightCashHomey21
LINK
Telegraph disagrees with you.
quote:
Manchester United are paying the price for the Glazer takeover
quote:
Under the Glazers, Ferguson abandoned the big spending – with the exception of the £30.75?million purchase of Dimitar Berbatov in September 2008 – and pursued “value in the market” at the same time as decrying the “kamikaze spending” of rivals such as City and Chelsea.
Telegraph disagrees with you.
This post was edited on 4/21/14 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:39 am to TheOcean
I post actual numbers you post a broken link(now it works)
258 million sounds cheap to me
That and Fergie has only been on 2 big spending sprees
Berbatov up until Mata was the most we have ever spent on a player. We are not Chelsea or City, shite Liverpool spends more than we do.
258 million sounds cheap to me
That and Fergie has only been on 2 big spending sprees
Berbatov up until Mata was the most we have ever spent on a player. We are not Chelsea or City, shite Liverpool spends more than we do.
This post was edited on 4/21/14 at 10:44 am
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:44 am to StraightCashHomey21
LINK
quote:
Manchester United slump exposes failings of Glazers' plans
quote:
It seemed flagrantly obvious that Ferguson's comparative frugality after a career of big-money signings – Ruud Van Nistelrooy for £19m in 2001; Ferdinand for £30m in 2002 and Rooney for £20m in 2005 to cite just three – was due to the money leaking out to the Glazers' bankers. Ferguson, though, has always been clear, as have the Glazers, that despite the debts and accounting losses, there was always money to spend. Ferguson's best explanation for his continued praising of the Glazers, which has disappointed so many United supporters, has been: "They always backed me."
So the truth may really be that they left Ferguson to it, and he alone allowed United to fall behind their rivals. As Moyes struggles with his inheritance, doubts once again focus on the Glazers' leadership, and the wisdom of allowing Ferguson to choose his successor. They look to have been a little over-focused on the eager accumulation of club sponsors helmed by the new chief executive Ed Woodward in the London office near the Ritz, rather than the defence, midfield and attack requirements in Manchester 16.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:47 am to TheOcean
Keep trying, but posting opinion pieces to make you look smart doesn't.
Posted on 4/21/14 at 10:50 am to TheOcean
This thread on Red Cafe, by a Man U supporter, is an interesting read.. and yes, I realize it is a lot of speculation and don't know how factual some of it is..
Ownership: Liverpool v Man U
And no, I'm not trying to make it a which owners are smarter or better conversation... I'm not convinced that FSG didn't just "get lucky," but I'll take it..
Reading this is what actually made me ask the first question I did in this thread..
Ownership: Liverpool v Man U
And no, I'm not trying to make it a which owners are smarter or better conversation... I'm not convinced that FSG didn't just "get lucky," but I'll take it..
Reading this is what actually made me ask the first question I did in this thread..
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News