you cute ya?? hahha, on one hand you claimed that you cant even
remember but on the other you clearly remembered what you mentioned
so long ago?? hahaha.. yes, i'm referring to you.
and whatever you might wanna says or think, the fact still
reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a
true owner should, everthing is self generated by the club and i
don't see how ManU would have been better/worst off with or without
them, a fact proven by the recent gold green thingy, and look,
buying a club and attending games and stuff doesn't means a thing,
owners dont really play a big role in winning or losing a champion
other than the high profile Chelsea, ManC and a couple more, where
owner is like everything the club is, in and the club is there and
off the club goes down, its a totally different thing if you're
wise enough to see for yourself, nothing to do with Texas or
whatever country or state and you're discrediting SAF, the backroom
staff and its players if the recent winning is being credit to the
owners
and maybe you would likes to explain why would this buying got
anything to do with Chelsea and their manager'sd era? Glazers had a
say in Chelsea board? and even if they do, of which everyone of us
knows they don't, Roman and solely Roman will call the shot with
regards to anything Chelsea.
and as for the no disagreement, discontentment and interference
thingy, i'll reserved touching on that, certain ppl might want to
have certain news broken in the media, simply for their motives,
while others dont, so i wouldn't wanna get myself into whether or
not there is any disagreement, discontentment and interference,
media are well known to be the most powerful weapons for those who
know how to play the game ball right.
my only interest in this is, self generate or the otherwise, and
i'll likes to point out that both sets of owners are doing the same
other that one fail misery while the other becos (and solely becos
of) their investment being of a more self generated club their ass
are hidden but just below the water, come the day SAF goes and we
self see again for ourself if your beloved Glazers really and
willing has got stuff to back ManU up and not throwing in the towel
like the other sets of owners
Yeah seriously I can't remember about our actual discussion but
since you mentioned a mod from this forum and the point in
case... Equaling the 2 at Pool with the Glazers as owners...
It's amazing.
I seriously think you should first check up carefully on
your facts whether the Glazer had actually not put a cent into
the club before you go about making a statement like "the fact
still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU". This
is a very big remark to make without any prove to back your
statement you know... Any how say just to win a point in a
discussion?
You seem to have the notion The Glazers won't be liable for
anything should the club financial fortunes changes
or collapse do you? I don't think I need to go into
more detail on this as I belief almost everyone should understand
this simple scenario. Let me ask you this question, do you
even realise the amount of liabilities they are carrying?
Again, you are dead wrong on this as well... Owners, along with
the managers are like part of the team today. Only they have a
different responsibility to that of the manager. Prior to the
Glazers taking over at United, the club spent 2 to 3 yrs with the
same management team without the title and was looking to be
on a decline... It was no secret that many saw it as the
beginning of the end of an era and many predicted a Chelsea
domination for the next decade. Many even started to question
whether Fergie should step down and make way for a new man. Cos
under a PLC system, United were never able to spent $50m to
some say $80m in a transfer window. But they did with the arrival
of the Glazers... They brought in Owen Hargreaves, Nani,
Anderson and Tevez all in the same season... Paid what many thought
then was over priced for Michael Carrick the year before. All
these might not have happened had they remain a PLC where they had
to justify each player's price to their thousands of shareholders
and the stock exchanged as well. And on top of all this, keep a
discreet balance sheet in every financial year so that
shareholders get a larger profit returns. We can see this happening
at Arsenal right now. So you still belief owners don't play a
part?
Joan Laporta became president of Barce, in Spain, becoming
president is like being the owner and not a manager... He took a
down and out Barce side back to the top during his presidency... In
between there was 2 managers Frank Rijkaard and Josep Guardiola...
So who should get the credit? Cos Rijkaard did a great job, but
Guardiola did just as well if not better... So the President not
important to you as well?
Is there really a need for an explanation? Just use your common
sense. Reason being very simple... The Glazer may
not have any say what goes on at Chelsea. But like you have
said it yourself, Roman and solely Roman will call the shot with
regards to anything at Chelsea, and not even their then CEO Kenyon
or other directors.
Roman cannot tolerate failures therefore the rise of Man
United again in 2006 saw the end of Mourinho, Grant
and Scolari... It's that simple. Then CEO Kenyon was not in
favour of the sacking but some of it was done without his knowledge
when he was on the other side of the world when it was
announced.
And on the no disagreement, no discontentment and
no interference part, What is there to be reserved about?
If it's there, it will happen no matter how well you try to keep it
under the table... But if it's not, then there is nothing to come
out of it... We all saw it at Chelsea with Mourinho, then there was
Scholari too... But nothing with Ancelotti... And we have all
seen it with Rafa as well not just this season, last season too...
It happen at United as well prior to the Glazers taking over... The
pair of JP McManus and John Magnier brought un-stability to the
club for a period. So you seriously belief owner can't play a
part?
Again you are terribly mistaken... I don't think I need to say
this but I don't have any love or hate for the Glazers... and I
won't miss them should they sell out to a better owners. But I can
appreciate the timing of their era just like I once belief the club
becoming a PLC in the early 90s was a great move cos it took them a
club once behind to Liverpool in many departments like transfer of
players, salaries of players, stadium standard, brand name/ club
attractiveness to potential players... almost everything
and change all that in their first 15 years. But time changes and a
PLC might not be the best thing anymore to counter the new types of
other football club owners...
On what has been said, it doesn't change for me one bit. In this
period of time, The Glazers are the best owners United could
have... We can argue they can get better ones but then again,
they could have got worse ones as well... Like the 2 at
Anfield...
So for you to equal them like they are alike, it's just
plain ridiculous no matter how many years later we talk about
it... Cos first 4 yrs alone, we can already see the huge
difference in results and trophies between them. That alone is
enough said for my case...
