Fergie salutes Glazers

James Robson

June 02, 2008

Bryan, Avram and Joel Glazer

IT will be a long time - some will say a cold day in hell - before Malcolm or any other Glazer is welcomed to Old Trafford with open arms.

But if ever Manchester United's owners wanted to win over a sceptical public, now is their chance.

Sir Alex Ferguson's revelation of their stance over the Cristiano Ronaldo saga is unlikely to bring disillusioned supporters back to Old Trafford - they'd have a job getting back in anyway - but it goes a long way to proving that cash is not their sole motivation.

According to Ferguson, United's owners will not sell at any price - and certainly not to Real Madrid.

Not even the Glazers' fiercest critics could seriously claim that would have been the case when the club was a public limited company.

Acrimonious

"They have been good to this club. They've been brilliant owners," said Ferguson.

While ticket price hikes have confirmed some of the fears of their detractors, as far as Ferguson is concerned "brilliant" doesn't even come close.

Far from the asset-strippers they were made out to be following their acrimonious acquisition of United in 2005, they have been precisely the opposite, sanctioning the signings that have helped Ferguson guide the club back to the summit of European football.

Even during his darkest time in recent years, when United crashed out of the Champions League at the group stages in 2005, the Americans gave him the backing to build his latest great team.

Their money allowed United to make Rio Ferdinand the highest paid player in the club's history when he signed a new deal last season - and also tied Ronaldo (above) to his current contract that still has four years to run.

Their money - borrowed or not - is also likely to provide the Portuguese winger with the salary he wants to keep him at Old Trafford.

And while anti-Glazers will say Ronaldo sells shirts and puts bums on seats, even their most myopic critics would have to accept that United will sell shirts and sell-out stadiums even without the Portuguese international.

The fact is, it would be very easy for the Glazers to sell at anything from £70- £100m - and at that price few could blame them.

That they are steadfast in their resolve to keep him at the club is the clearest evidence yet that success on the pitch is at least as important as success off it.

Should Ferguson's comments prove true, it will be the latest step on the road to redemption for the Glazers.

Overseen

Arriving at Old Trafford literally amid a hail of spit and fury, they have overseen something of a resurrection at United.

Compare that to some of their counterparts.

Chelsea's beloved Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich allowed his ego to interfere with Jose Mourinho's work, thus pulling the rug from under Stamford Bridge at precisely the time they were beginning to dominate.

At Liverpool, Tom Hicks and George Gillett have squabbled to the point that Liverpool have become a laughing stock, while Thaksin Shinawatra at City has simply bemused his club's following over his treatment of Sven-Goran Eriksson.

Glazer, meanwhile, has quietly allowed Ferguson and chief executive David Gill to let United get on with what they do best - winning trophies and making shedloads of cash.

Indeed, it says everything about the Glazers' commitment to building on the two Premier League titles, one Champions League and one Carling Cup won during their reign that at a time when they are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their most valuable asset, they are also making moves to add yet more jewels to an already glittering array of talent.

With one hand they are strong-arming the attentions of Real and with the other they are tempting Lyons and Sevilla in a bid to lure Karim Benzema, the French international striker, and Brazilian defender Daniel Alves at a combined cost of £50m.

After years of seeing United's commitments to their shareholders scupper moves for Europe's hottest properties like Gabriel Batistuta, Pavel Nedved and Lilian Thuram, it's no wonder Ferguson thinks the Glazers are brilliant.

What do you think? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (162) |

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Robbo, N2409 (02/06/2008 at 10:18)

Yes, Fergie, you might well say that, but, then again, you don't have to pay for your (padded) seat in the stands. Multi-millionaire Sir Alex Ferguson stopped caring about the fans a long, long time ago.

ian, preston (02/06/2008 at 10:35)

Got my fingers crossed for Benzema and Alves!!Ronny hasn't got a decision to make?He either commits to the club or rots in the reserves either way he's not leaving!And if he does,we should swap Messi,Ronaldinho and Henry plus £20 million to put Real's nose out of joint

JP (02/06/2008 at 10:36)

I suspect its not quite as clear cut as the article makes out. Of course the comments can be read as a defiant statment to Real and Ronaldo about who is boss and what their motivations are. But equally it could be read as the first shot in horse trading. I'm not sure what is the case but if £70m was offered I think the hand of the Spaniard would be bitten off.

The Glazers have been good in the sense that they don't interfere with Fergie's work. They have also sanctioned investment in the club at the level required. But they have put the club in a perilous and parlous state, any business plan will include gearing up and they have certainly done that.

TJC Robinson (02/06/2008 at 10:36)

While I disagree with the amount of debt the club are in and the hike in ticket prices, I have to say the Glazers have backed SAF in the transfer market and we have won the Champion's League again. I do think Ronaldo should come out and say I'm staying and will see out my contract and beyond. This club has made me and I will repay them with my loyalty. On the other hand if he says I would like to play with Real Madrid, then I would say goodbye and make sure Real paid £100m for the privilege so we can move on and bring in the likes of Messi or Ribery as a replacement. It's no good saying Ronaldo can rot in the stand, that won't replace him out on the pitch. We need players who are totally comitted to the club and bring us even greater success. I wouldn't blame the Glazers if he left, but no player is greater than the club and we have to move on.

Steve, Glossop (02/06/2008 at 10:58)

Why cant the Glazers speak for themselves. Shame Fergie cant spare a thought for the supporters who stayed loyal to him when he faced the sack some of whom cant afford to go now.

Radio Deadon, Nottingham (02/06/2008 at 11:18)

Ronaldo has peaked and we should seriously look at selling him if he wants to go but for no less than £70 - 80 Million and not in drips and drabs and add on fees, get all the money up front. We can buy 3-4 other world class players with that money, never mind what we are already budgeted for! We may be able to hold on to him but if not this year then he will certainly go next.

Realistically what more can he do for us, repeat what we've just achieved this season? maybe but if he's not happy and he starts to create discontent then it causes problems like we had with RVN. If we do keep him and he achieves the same as last year then he becomes even more iconic and it looks like he is carrying the team and therefore bigger than the team then we also have a problem - as much as I like him, I say sell him and take the money but make sure we get a bucket load for him!!

Mark, South Manchester (02/06/2008 at 12:12)

"THEIR MONEY THIS" ; "THEIR MONEY THAT" & "OVERSEEN SOMETHING OF A RESURRECTION."

What are you going on about? United were cash rich when the Glazers took over - 10+ years of ever increasing profit. Then the new SKY deal.
All nothing to do with the Glazers.
And United's resurrection on the pitch has mainly been due to Carlos Queiroz "discovering" far better medium priced players - not necessarily more expensive ones.

tooth&claw, manchester (02/06/2008 at 12:16)

Most United fans are sensible enough. They know that at an operational level United are stronger now than they were prior to the Glazers taking over. We have higher revenues, higher operational profits, there's money for players, there's money for wages and the Glazers don't interfere.

The only downside is the debt that comes with the Glazers but that doesn't interfere with United operationally. You could view it as a £850m release clause should anyone want to bid for United. A bidder would certainly have to significantly exceed that for the Glazers to even consider it.

I think the days when the Glazers were pariahs is well and truly over. Compared to the plc, and indeed most Premiership owners, they are a breath of fresh air.

stevey0009, Denton, Manchester (02/06/2008 at 13:07)

I don't think we should sell Ronaldo woteva the costs. he still has potential to get better, plus he likes playing at Man United and i don't think he wants to go anyway, hes just winding it up...

Red Dread, Cambridge (02/06/2008 at 13:11)

Benzema + Alves and Ronny in the stands for a year. Once released to play for Madrid he WILL NOT be what they think. Ron is a Manchester creation with a team built to support him. How well does he do for Portugal?

Punish him for his disloyalty whiloe sending a message to other clubs who think they can raid United, then let him go next year for Robinho and a ton of cash.

We won't lose a beat ... the club will actually be stronger!!!

Roy (02/06/2008 at 13:12)

"The only downside is the debt that comes with the Glazers" - ah, but what a downside, T&C.

Alias Smith, over the moon (02/06/2008 at 13:43)

Steve, you talking about loyalty to Fergie is about as ironic as it gets.

Alias Smith, over the moon (02/06/2008 at 13:54)

There is no doubt that being in private ownership gives the board and therefore the manager a great deal more scope in terms of transfer fees and player wages than certainly the latter years as a PLC did. And in the current climate of exponentially increasing fees and wages, we would be trailing in the wake of Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, maybe even Villa if we were still a PLC. Of course, the downside is the debt but that seems not to have been a hinderance so far and is likely to be even less so in the future as our revenues and profits increase.

NEIL, stalybridge (02/06/2008 at 14:08)

CAN NOT FAULT THEM.WELL DONE

george (02/06/2008 at 14:14)

I think the Glaziers have been brilliant in the way they've allowed SAF to manage unhindered.I also think we negotiate and achieve transfer targets better since their arrival.The cost of going to the game is an issue at every premier club.I was open minded about them coming and so far UNITED have done better since their arrival.Coincidence?

Johnniejohn, Tunbridge Wells (02/06/2008 at 14:18)

In his own words SAF will retire in the next 3 years, which is before the ticking time bomb of debt repayments kicks in. LIke ticket prices, not his problem!

Mitch van Biljon (02/06/2008 at 14:22)

Lets see....85 million for winning the champions league plus 40+ million for winning the premiership plus say 80 million for Ronaldo = $205 million.

Spend $100 million on Benzema, Richards and a 2 other world class players and take $105 million to pay off some debt. You would have to be stupid to not accept those conditions.

It is not possible for one player to repeat last years performance, period. We need more balance in the team and the scoring load to be shared. I personally think united will be more balanced without a prima donna who certainly is not a true lover of United. Let him go to Real Madrid and find that he does not have the great players around him. If he does carry Real to success then I will honor him as a true great.

mattmcfc (02/06/2008 at 14:31)

Rather than Fergie saluting the Glazers, should he not be hi-fiving them?

tooth&claw, manchester (02/06/2008 at 14:47)

Roy, actually, it's not that much of a downside. If you were thinking of buying United, you'd look at the operational figures, not the debt. You'd know that you'd have to pay off the Glazers' debt and then some in order for them to sell to you. So the debt just becomes part of the price you'd pay. The bottom line is that the club is very sound operationally and the Glazers' method of funding the takeover hasn't affected the operation and doesn't look like doing so.

Alias Smith, over the moon (02/06/2008 at 15:25)

Johnniejohn, yet another MUST prediction that will never come true. Just like my favourite, "we'll be walking in there [the United boardroom] by Christmas" make just after the Glazer took control!

Self-publicising scare-mongerers, the lot of you.

stu, london (02/06/2008 at 15:45)

T&C - spot on. The debt may be a worry, but in a business context, it is merely part of the 'Manchester United company'. It will only present an operational problem if revenues fall below the minimum repayment schedule. Which won't happen so long as we continue to perform and fill seats.

Johnniejohn, Tunbridge Wells (02/06/2008 at 15:45)

Alias, it is my understanding that SAF himself said within 3 years, not MUST. He talked about his wife and grandkids, travelling the world etc. He will be 70 or so by then, so hardly unsurprising. I am not a member of MUST so please dont resort to smears of that sort. The fact is that the debt interest is being rolled up into more debt and repayments will have to start at some point. Not to mention actual payments for players signed since the glazers arrived. apparently 50 million+ owned on transfers. More signings this summer will just further max out the lines of credit. At some point all this will have to be repaid. And 2 things are certain. It wont be the glazers paying any of it, and it wont be me either.

stan (02/06/2008 at 16:00)

'There is no doubt that being in private ownership gives the board and therefore the manager a great deal more scope in terms of transfer fees and player wages '

Im all ears. Can someone tell me who the Glazers have signed that cost more than, lets say, Rooney, Ferdinand, Veron, or Van Nistelrooy?

Alias Smith, over the moon (02/06/2008 at 16:14)

stan, who have they signed that cost more than Djemba-Djemba, Bellion and Kleberson would be a much more relevant question.

tooth&claw, manchester (02/06/2008 at 16:17)

johnniejohn, firstly, SAF is supposed to have uttered his 3 years deadline at a press conference at Carrington with all of the UK press present and breakfasting on champagne but only the Daily Mail actually reported him saying anything about a deadline. Strange that the other hacks missed an exclusive! Particularly as the whole thing was televised on MUTV!

Some of the interest payments aren't due yet, so that's why they are not paid. It's not that they are being rolled into greater debt; it was always going to be like that. That was the schedule of payments. That allows the Glazers to restructure the debt anytime in the next couple of years and save maybe 15m a year on interest.

Nobody mentions Chelsea's debts which are higher than ours on lower revenues and on a crippling repayment schedule should Abramovich want his money back. No-one mentions Arsenal's debt which is compatative to ours given they are a smaller outfit. They don't mention the punitive interest rates Arsenal received and had to restructure against future revenues. They don't mention that the increased match day revenue all goes to the RBS-led consortium of banks and that Arsenal have to maintain over 98% seat utilisation at the Emirates. Both clubs are in a worse operational state to us. In fact, few clubs even come close operationally to us.

We've always had extended payment and conditional payment terms on player purchases. It's always been that way. Ferdinand, van Nistelrooy, Veron coming in, Beckham, Stam, Forlan, Richardson going out, all on complex payments. All that has changed is that people are looking at the accounts now and didn't in the days of the plc.

The scaremongers who invent these stories do tend to be bitters or ex-United fans or the traitors.

()

Report

Manchester United