Quote Originally Posted by 18nufc92 View Post
Lot of talk in recent days about the demise of Man Utd and the way the Glazers run the club. When they purchased the club, 17 years ago now, they used the clubs own money to leverage the deal and saddled it with £600m worth debt in the process. 17 years later the club still owe £600m despite the owners regularly taking money out of the club.

Media outlets, headed by Sky Sports, are seemingly now beginning to put pressure on the Glazers to sell the club with a barrage of criticism in recent days. I have to agree that saddling the club with debt whilst purchasing it was a disgrace and is now rightly banned in England as well as many other countries. However, over those 17 years of ownership they have spent well over a billion on new players with ridiculous wages handed out to the likes of Pogba, Ronaldo etc. They clearly lack any sort of plan in the transfer market and in general which is their main problem. However, my point is, what’s the difference between the way the Glazers run MUFC versus the way Ashley ran NUFC, only using money the club generates in revenue on new players? Why is it that Ashley was treated badly but the Glazers need to go?
Regardless of what people say. The Glazers HAVE spent big money on players and backed their managers. The fans are awful and really are the biggest problem. The hated Mourinho and pushed him out the club. Ed Woodward was a disaster as DoF.

Moreover, the Glazers have made the Brand of Man United more profitable than every before. So everything is going well on a business front, just going horribly (in their terms) on the field.

Long may it continue.