Seems to be a running theme with this club the last six years. What ‘service’ has our charming chief executive actually delivered to warrant a 60% pay rise?
“Man United vice chairman Ed Woodward's salary package last year climbed from £2.6m to £4.1m - a one-off raise because of shares accrued for service"
https://apnews.com/b940e468182f4fa589bd7539778ac332
Rewarding failure
posted on 15/2/19
comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Dave NotSo (U11711)
posted 20 minutes ago
Sat Nav, you cannot be serious, surely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To both - Dave & Rosso
I am not denying the way that the bought and have consequently run the club. What I am disagreeing with is your oversimplification and the negative assumptions & conclusions that you are attaching to it as if it is not part of everyday business?
You're about 30 years too late lads - you should have complained in 1991 when the club was first listed on the stock exchange. From then onwards, it's been a business and it was in 2004/2005 and it is now.
I really don't get what your major issue is with the owners, I really don't. You're not alone with your popular opinion I just don't see what they've done that deserves such criticism. Being called leeches, parasites et cetera. I've never heard anything so clueless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies; as I'd only posted, "apparently it can be bought using very little of one's own money," it appeared that you were questioning the validity of the statement.
The facts - about the Glazers leveraging the club to the hilt, about them placing its assets at risk, about them taking close to a billion quid out to service the debts and line their own pockets - are, of course, facts. Objective and indisputable.
It's up to each of us to make his or her mind up about whether they're *happy about* what the Glazers have done, of course.
You might think they have been great representatives of the club and have given the fans as much as they have deserved, or you might think, "they're just businessmen and any football club as a business is fair game," and are entitled to your opinion.
And I am entitled to mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I agree with that. I just think that people overreact a lot with them and I don't really understand why.
Look at Leeds, Newcastle, Blackburn some of the Spanish teams etc what have the Glazers done that has really ruined our club so much that we label them as leeches and parasites?
posted on 15/2/19
Satnav,
Ferguson came out and said they were brilliant owners during his time, supported him fully and never got involved with the football side of things. Maybe these people want Roman Abramovic. I really don't get the criticisms they get.
Incoming Brightdave comment....
posted on 15/2/19
Sat Nav
For me, performing better than some of the greatest failures in the history of football club ownership isn't in itself any great achievement.
This topic has been absolutely done to death here, in the stands and elsewhere, so I'm not going to engage in yet another lengthy debate on it, but I will say this again:
I cannot look favourably in any way on an owner of my football club that firstly takes ownership by placing an inordinate amount of debt on the club - a debt that at the time had a value of around three quarters of the estimated value of the club itself - with that debt secured against the club's assets.
That secondly, used over the next ten years the best part of one billion pounds of the club's revenue from ordinary fans - ticket sales, memberships, MUTV subscriptions, shirt sales - to service that debt *whilst at the same time* paying themselves special dividends and 'consultancy fees' in the tens of millions of pounds.
That thirdly, has filled the executive board entirely with people who have no footballing knowledge or experience, that has taken power from the footballing side of the business and put decisionmaking on sporting matters in the hands of businessmen, and that has otherwise repeatedly demonstrated that it is more interested in commercial success than on-field success.
That fourthly, in association with the board, has repeatedly shown poor decisionmaking in its structuring of the club and managerial appointments.
That fifthly, has no - and has never shown a - clear sporting vision for the future of the club.
And that sixthly, has failed to invest in the infrastructure of the club and allowed the stadium not only to fall behind developmentally, but due to ill-maintenance, to age when we once boasted the greatest home of any football club in the country.
posted on 15/2/19
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/19
Not sure you understand what failure means OP.
posted on 15/2/19
Hang on Rosso, you can't say this debate hasbeen done to death and I won't do it again then proceed to post six proper points and not engage with a response...cmon man...
I am not saying that because we are not Blackburn, Leeds etc that they've been a success. I listed those teams because it shows what proper leeches/parasites are....
Ultimately they are businessmen and they are not MEGA MEGA wealthy such as Roman/Sheikh type owners so they have to leverage. Do we hold it against our local shops who leverage to acquire more shop spaces? No. This is the same. I'm sure they would love to have $16bn in their accounts and just have fun with it all but they can't, they don't have that level of money.
Despite that, during their ownership we have continued to win trophies on an extremely regular basis and they have spent serious money on players when if they really were leeches, they would have spent much less since SAF than they have.
Anyway, you & Dave and others will have your opinion and I will have mine which is that they really haven't been that bad and yes I would prefer them to some middle eastern oil family
posted on 15/2/19
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 12 minutes ago
Not sure you understand what failure means OP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiring three failing managers and paying them a total of £32m in compensation highlights very grave failure pal.
posted on 15/2/19
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
Hang on Rosso, you can't say this debate hasbeen done to death and I won't do it again then proceed to post six proper points and not engage with a response...cmon man...
I am not saying that because we are not Blackburn, Leeds etc that they've been a success. I listed those teams because it shows what proper leeches/parasites are....
Ultimately they are businessmen and they are not MEGA MEGA wealthy such as Roman/Sheikh type owners so they have to leverage. Do we hold it against our local shops who leverage to acquire more shop spaces? No. This is the same. I'm sure they would love to have $16bn in their accounts and just have fun with it all but they can't, they don't have that level of money.
Despite that, during their ownership we have continued to win trophies on an extremely regular basis and they have spent serious money on players when if they really were leeches, they would have spent much less since SAF than they have.
Anyway, you & Dave and others will have your opinion and I will have mine which is that they really haven't been that bad and yes I would prefer them to some middle eastern oil family
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your prerogative
I expect I'm not going to change your opinion, and you certainly aren't going to change mine, so we can agree to disagree.
posted on 15/2/19
Great post, rosso.
posted on 15/2/19
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 54 minutes ago
Great post, rosso.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack 'em, Dazza