Desperation from Utd?

[Assassin]

Glaziers pocket £75 000 000 from share issue shocker

This will end in ****ing tears!!!

[spud_gun]

Glaziers pocket £75 000 000 from share issue shocker

This will end in ****ing tears!!!

Not for them it won't. At least not until they've sucked every possible pound from that football club.

[Assassin]

Not for them it won't. At least not until they've sucked every possible pound from that football club.

This is what I am referring too. It can't happen soon enough

[spud_gun]

This is what I am referring too. It can't happen soon enough

[RedAndWhite]

This is what I am referring too. It can't happen soon enough

But will it - they are milking it dry knowing they could sell up and still make money from the deal. Any investor will look at it and see a license to print money, especially if you don't have huge loans taking all the interest.

[Assassin]

But will it - they are milking it dry knowing they could sell up and still make money from the deal. Any investor will look at it and see a license to print money, especially if you don't have huge loans taking all the interest.

They will milk it dry as they have full control. Thi will end in disaster for the scum

[Darth Marty]

Id like to think they will be in the Ryman divison sooner rather than later however what will probably happen is the Glazers will all die & somehow have a 10 billion insurance policy which will immediately pay all the debts off & with a few billion spare, then Bill Gates will buy them & they will turn into a religion ala Bill & Ted & within 300 years famine, war & violence will have been eradicated due to Manchester United & all boys will have to be called Alex. Or Eric.

Or something like that.

[Suarez]

I really don't think you can say he failed in the Champions League. 4 Finals in 20 years or so is impressive. If it was a Liverpool manager who did the same he would have been hailed as a Hero. He has experienced dominance from Ajax, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and Barcelona. But Man Utd are still a powerful side on the continent.

F3rguson is one of the greatest Football managers of all time. I hate him, but even I can acknowledge that.

Rafa managed 2 finals in 6 years with a side worth about £100m less. Its an underachievement that he hasn't won it more I think. Where he's concerned we can only really compare against the top sides success, not managers as managers have moved on whilst he's lingered like a bad smell. Being there for so long would also be beneficial when he goes into europe, he's been there done it and has had the privilege of bringing in new players and adding them as and when he see's fit. New managers have to bed in, sell on previous managers players etc, get to know the squad, it all takes time where Fergie has had stability and had to deal with none of this.

Its not a massive underachievement by any stretch of imagination, but I think he should've won it more definitely.

[kris90210]

No, the manager clearly isn't everything. He's important - as I said, the most important individual - but he's still only one man.

But what you're completely missing is that if it wasn't him, it would be someone else. And what we've seen is that there is a correlation approaching 1 between spending power and success. Man United may not currently be spending the most but they have done throughout nearly all of F3rguson's period of dominance.

As for your earlier comment about not being in decline, we clearly are - we haven't won the league in all that time. Houllier and Benitez each made a difference for a short while but no one ever said gradual decline has to be a smooth curve. Houllier's achievements are explicable I feel by simply random chance, allied to spending power. Benitez is a little more difficult to explain that way, and does give some credence to the idea that a manager can have a significant impact.

I'm not arguing this from a tribalist perspective at all. It's simply that I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why it's always the best team that happens to have spent the most money.

I'm not sure I entierly understand your position. If you're saying that the best team *always* spends the most money, then are you saying it doesn't matter who the manager is? That's wrong by the way, the best team normally spends the most money, but not always - just take Montpellier as an example from last season. United in the season before that.

I'm aware that a correlation exists between spending and success. I was under the impression that wages tends to be the biggest factor. But every year there are plenty of exceptions to that rule. Look at Leeds a few years ago under O'Leary. There are plenty more factors that ultimately the manager is responsible for.

I don't agree with you regarding our decline. How much longer are we going to be in decline for? Until we next win the league? I'm sure if you'd been asked the question, 'are Liverpool FC in decline' 3 years ago, you wouldn't have said that we were. I'm a bit too young to remember the end of Dalglish's first reign, but from what I've heard, we were in decline by then. Souness royally ****ed us up. Things picked up Roy Evans, but you could still very well argue that we were in decline at that point. Personally, I think Houllier arrested the decline and got rid of the rot that was at the club. We were in the acendancy for the first time in years until the wheels fell off in 2002. Obviously we were in the ascendancy again under Rafa every year he was at the club until his final season. I know that you already know all this, but the point I'm making is that I think decline and ascendancy aren't things you can measure over a 20 year span in football. Certainly not in our case. There have been peaks and troughs, but there have been notable periods when we have been getting closer year on year.

I'd be interested to hear why you feel Houlliers achievements are explicable by random chance and spending power?

[kris90210]

Neil, I think your doing your best to undermine the impact of a manager on the club. I think money has a lot to do with it. But I don't think we would have been who we are today off the field and on it, if it wasn't for Shankly. His ability to galvanize the club and make us a success on the pitch has led to the years of glory we achieved long since he left.

A lot of success is down to a manager. But maybe taking your point, you could extract from it that a good manager is needed for the start of years of success. Then after that, the finances are in place for nearly anyone to be successful given the right basic tactical knowledge. As witnessed by Mancini at Man City. Only thing is that he had the finances without the need for a manager before him.

F3rguson's success maybe should be viewed as at its best during the first 5-10 years of his tenure. He dragged them from not much at all (finishing 21st the season before he took over), to winning the league over and over again.

Absolutely

I mean, Utd fans could easily throw the same arguments back at us regarding Paisley. After all, didn't he spend more money than anyone else at that point?

There's trying to appear non-partisan, and there's acknowledging something that's blatenly true. Ferguson is a brilliant manager and will go down as one of the greatest of all time. If it hadn't have been Ferguson, it would have been someone else, but would they have been able to replicate his achievements? We'll never know, so what's the point in speculating?

[Vermilion]

Bit of a disaster this then.

Down to $5.00 a share now apparently.

[Resu]

Will this hurt the club financially or just the Glaziers?
I`m fine with both.

[Fivex]

Bit of a disaster this then.

Down to $5.00 a share now apparently.

Still being sold for about $14 a share - it was some random company called PrivCo that reckons 'a fair value is $4.97', which would value them at £510m, which seems low to me.

Clicky

[Vermilion]

Still being sold for about $14 a share - it was some random company called PrivCo that reckons 'a fair value is $4.97', which would value them at £510m, which seems low to me.

Clicky

A third of what the Glazers value them at.

Yeah bit low probably, but they aren't selling as hoped are they.

[ChesterDave]

Still being sold for about $14 a share - it was some random company called PrivCo that reckons 'a fair value is $4.97', which would value them at £510m, which seems low to me.

Clicky

The shares are worth less than reality because they are non divdend paying and have no voting power.

A normal share would be worth a lot more. Can't believe the link would overlook that! Clearly they are worth more than 500m because paying that and clearing debts would still give a 10% yield