WE HAVE REACHED the stage of grim acceptance in the decline of Manchester United.
The club’s structure has been exposed for what it is – a slick, proficient advertising agency whose talent is also inexplicably in charge of one of the biggest footballer operations on the planet.
Much of the media criticism is no longer concerning itself with the week-to-week churn of a bad result and the hounding of the manager, the questions are being directed above him.
There is an acceptance that Ole Gunnar Solskjaer is not doing particularly well, yet there is little desire to see him sacked as, well, who could do any better? He has been left with a threadbare squad, with injuries to Martial and Rasford leaving him reliant on 17-year-old Mason Greenwood and a single injury to Paul Pogba from a lobotomised midfield.
He was given a lot of money to sign Harry Maguire but the squad has been left under-resourced elsewhere amid a general sense of stasis at the club. A year on, they are still yet to hire a Sporting Director to drag the club in line with their rivals and offer some genuine, qualified attention to the football side of things.
“’Responsible owners would not tolerate this shambolic approach to running their club, leading to an obvious conclusion”, Jamie Carragher wrote in his Telegraph column today.
“The Glazers do not care because United are making money regardless of what is happening on the pitch.”
Writer and Manchester United fan Daniel Harris struck a similar note on Off The Ball this week.
“There was no reason why he [Solskjaer] couldn’t have been given more money to buy more players, apart from the fact that United have owners that use the club as their personal ATM.
“Their ambitions are not commensurate with the reputation of the club and the ambitions of the supporters. Until that changes, you are going to see lots more of this.
“As far as getting in the Champions League, the only way that I can possibly look at this is that the Glazers are not that bothered about getting into the Champions League.”
With the explosion of TV revenue and the enormous marketing opportunities offered by social media, clubs are no longer as reliant upon on-pitch to sustain their income.
Hence United are still making money – only this week they announced a record revenue of £627.1million.
It was also announced that the club’s net debt had fallen to £204million, the lowest since the Glazers took charge.
The level of debt on the club has been highly contentious among fans at United.
Advertisement
When the Glazers took over the club in 2005, they loaded it debt that spiralled beyond £700 million in 2010. The Guardian reported last year they have drained £1 billion from the club in interest payments, fees, and dividends since taking charge in 2005.
The club are generating massive amounts of money, and while they have recklessly flung a chunk of it away on artefacts like Alexis Sanchez of late, a lot more money isn’t going near the team at all.
Figures compiled by Swiss Ramble showed that between 2008 and 2017, the club generated £1.3 billion, almost twice as the next highest club, Arsenal (£754 million.)
Yet of that income – 49% went on debt and interest, with 32% invested in player purchases. Of their present top six rivals, only Daniel Levy’s famously parsimonious regime at Spurs invested a lower percentage in the playing squad.
United remained a dominant European force during the first half of this era, however, thanks to Alex Ferguson’s genius.
Ferguson’s legacy is secure in the minds of many associated with United, but as time passes and the Glazer era is considered in its entirety – will Ferguson be somewhat tarnished with association?
Ferguson’s fall-out with John Magnier and JP McManus over the Rock of Gibraltar racehorse helped facilitate a takeover of the club, and amid the green-and-gold protests at their control, the Glazers wisely gave Ferguson what he wanted.
He was a vocal supporter of the Glazer regime. In 2010, at an event in Doha in support of Qatar’s World Cup bid, he was asked about his American bosses. “We have a great relationship, they never bother me, they never phone. They never interfere. What more can you ask for?”
He repeated his support in 2012. “I am comfortable with the Glazer situation. They have been great…when the Glazers took over here there was dissatisfaction, so there have always been pockets of supporters who have their views. But I think the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it’s not affecting the team. We’ve won four championships since they’ve been there, one European Cup.”
Such was Ferguson’s genus, the Glazers were right to stay out of his way and give him what he wanted.
Ed Woodward and Avram Glazer. EMPICS Sport
EMPICS Sport
Roy Keane may have been right when he said Alex Ferguson did what was best for Alex Ferguson, but by that stage, what was best for Alex Ferguson was generally what was best for Manchester United. On the field, at least.
Football has never seen a winner as ruthless and pragmatic as Ferguson, and his accepting the control he was given by the Glazers was only natural in the pursuit of trophies; Ferguson playing along was probably a necessary part of his success.
It’s perhaps unrealistic to expect him to have ever stood up and articulated fans’ concerns about the Glazers’ ownership, given it would probably have been inimical to his chances of winning titles.
But it’s possible to believe that and also foresee his legacy being tarnished somewhat in the years and decades to come.
When the first historical revisionists arrive in the future, they will no longer judge United in terms of Ferguson being the dominant name at the club.
No, this history will judge United throughout the Glazer years in their entirety, and whatever their ultimate effect on the club has been.
And in the final judgement of this huge sweep of corporate greed and managed decline, even Ferguson’s achievements may be slightly diminished for having been associated with it.
Premier League fixtures (Kick-off 3pm unless stated)
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Close
18 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic.
Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy
here
before taking part.
Might Ferguson's achievements become tarnished amid realisation Glazers are United's biggest problem?
WE HAVE REACHED the stage of grim acceptance in the decline of Manchester United.
The club’s structure has been exposed for what it is – a slick, proficient advertising agency whose talent is also inexplicably in charge of one of the biggest footballer operations on the planet.
Much of the media criticism is no longer concerning itself with the week-to-week churn of a bad result and the hounding of the manager, the questions are being directed above him.
There is an acceptance that Ole Gunnar Solskjaer is not doing particularly well, yet there is little desire to see him sacked as, well, who could do any better? He has been left with a threadbare squad, with injuries to Martial and Rasford leaving him reliant on 17-year-old Mason Greenwood and a single injury to Paul Pogba from a lobotomised midfield.
He was given a lot of money to sign Harry Maguire but the squad has been left under-resourced elsewhere amid a general sense of stasis at the club. A year on, they are still yet to hire a Sporting Director to drag the club in line with their rivals and offer some genuine, qualified attention to the football side of things.
“’Responsible owners would not tolerate this shambolic approach to running their club, leading to an obvious conclusion”, Jamie Carragher wrote in his Telegraph column today.
“The Glazers do not care because United are making money regardless of what is happening on the pitch.”
Writer and Manchester United fan Daniel Harris struck a similar note on Off The Ball this week.
“There was no reason why he [Solskjaer] couldn’t have been given more money to buy more players, apart from the fact that United have owners that use the club as their personal ATM.
“Their ambitions are not commensurate with the reputation of the club and the ambitions of the supporters. Until that changes, you are going to see lots more of this.
“As far as getting in the Champions League, the only way that I can possibly look at this is that the Glazers are not that bothered about getting into the Champions League.”
With the explosion of TV revenue and the enormous marketing opportunities offered by social media, clubs are no longer as reliant upon on-pitch to sustain their income.
Hence United are still making money – only this week they announced a record revenue of £627.1million.
It was also announced that the club’s net debt had fallen to £204million, the lowest since the Glazers took charge.
The level of debt on the club has been highly contentious among fans at United.
When the Glazers took over the club in 2005, they loaded it debt that spiralled beyond £700 million in 2010. The Guardian reported last year they have drained £1 billion from the club in interest payments, fees, and dividends since taking charge in 2005.
The club are generating massive amounts of money, and while they have recklessly flung a chunk of it away on artefacts like Alexis Sanchez of late, a lot more money isn’t going near the team at all.
Figures compiled by Swiss Ramble showed that between 2008 and 2017, the club generated £1.3 billion, almost twice as the next highest club, Arsenal (£754 million.)
Yet of that income – 49% went on debt and interest, with 32% invested in player purchases. Of their present top six rivals, only Daniel Levy’s famously parsimonious regime at Spurs invested a lower percentage in the playing squad.
United remained a dominant European force during the first half of this era, however, thanks to Alex Ferguson’s genius.
Ferguson’s legacy is secure in the minds of many associated with United, but as time passes and the Glazer era is considered in its entirety – will Ferguson be somewhat tarnished with association?
Ferguson’s fall-out with John Magnier and JP McManus over the Rock of Gibraltar racehorse helped facilitate a takeover of the club, and amid the green-and-gold protests at their control, the Glazers wisely gave Ferguson what he wanted.
He was a vocal supporter of the Glazer regime. In 2010, at an event in Doha in support of Qatar’s World Cup bid, he was asked about his American bosses. “We have a great relationship, they never bother me, they never phone. They never interfere. What more can you ask for?”
He repeated his support in 2012. “I am comfortable with the Glazer situation. They have been great…when the Glazers took over here there was dissatisfaction, so there have always been pockets of supporters who have their views. But I think the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it’s not affecting the team. We’ve won four championships since they’ve been there, one European Cup.”
Such was Ferguson’s genus, the Glazers were right to stay out of his way and give him what he wanted.
Roy Keane may have been right when he said Alex Ferguson did what was best for Alex Ferguson, but by that stage, what was best for Alex Ferguson was generally what was best for Manchester United. On the field, at least.
Football has never seen a winner as ruthless and pragmatic as Ferguson, and his accepting the control he was given by the Glazers was only natural in the pursuit of trophies; Ferguson playing along was probably a necessary part of his success.
It’s perhaps unrealistic to expect him to have ever stood up and articulated fans’ concerns about the Glazers’ ownership, given it would probably have been inimical to his chances of winning titles.
But it’s possible to believe that and also foresee his legacy being tarnished somewhat in the years and decades to come.
When the first historical revisionists arrive in the future, they will no longer judge United in terms of Ferguson being the dominant name at the club.
No, this history will judge United throughout the Glazer years in their entirety, and whatever their ultimate effect on the club has been.
And in the final judgement of this huge sweep of corporate greed and managed decline, even Ferguson’s achievements may be slightly diminished for having been associated with it.
Premier League fixtures (Kick-off 3pm unless stated)
Saturday
Sheffield United v Liverpool (12.30pm)
Crystal Palace v Norwich
Aston Villa v Burnley
Bournemouth v West Ham
Wolves v Watford
Spurs v Southampton
Chelsea v Brighton
Everton v Manchester City (5.30pm)
Sunday
Leicester v Newcastle (4.30pm)
Monday
Manchester United v Arsenal
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
EPL Manchester United talking point