Manchester United Rumours Member Posts


.eden.'s Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
Flat Out Racing:

Not played Flat Out Racing

No Profile Picture uploaded


Where from:

Favourite player:

Best team moment:



.eden.'s Posts and Other Poster's Replies To .eden.'s Posts



To .eden.'s last 5 banter posts


To .eden.'s last 5 rumour replies


To .eden.'s last 5 banter replies


.eden. has no Rumours Posts



.eden.'s banter posts with other poster's replies to .eden.'s banter posts


11 Mar 2015 16:43:57
hi, not a united fan, but i was just wondering whether feelings have changed towards the glazers? obviously their was a lot of ill will towards them and they lumped you with a load of debt. but they sanctioned a major spending spree obviously the season hasn't gone quite as planned. but how the money was spent can't really be blamed on them they did make it available and are likely to make more available this summer. i just wondered if everyone still wanted them out or if people are starting to warm to them?


1.) 11 Mar 2015 17:25:14
Eden you work in a company and you have signed a contract to work for 10 years to earn 30k pounds per year. After 1 year the ownership changes and your salary drops down to 5k pounds per year.

You keep on working for the next 8 years for 5k per year and in the last year your salary is increased to 7k per year.

How would you feel about the company ownership?

2.) 11 Mar 2015 17:27:40
Major spending spree? You mean they let us spend a fraction of our OWN money for the first time in what 10 years? I don't even want to think about what we could have won without them over the past 10 years, if we'd have had the money to strengthen in the right areas when we need to I think we would have blown the feats Liverpool reached in the 80's straight out of the water. Unfortunately we were gifted with 'mid table' buys of 7m here 12m there and we ended up with an average midfield leading to only 2 CL finals and fair enough a few titles.

3.) 11 Mar 2015 17:39:34
I by no means speak for Utd fans as a collective, but personally I think we have bigger fish to fry at the moment with our clown of a manager. The Glaziers have definitely drifted from my mind since SAF retired.

4.) 11 Mar 2015 18:13:05
Whether it was down to SAF or the Glazers, we have been forced to watch our club fail to replace our key players with those of similar ability. It started with Keane and Ronaldo, then Scholes and Giggs, and then Vidic, Ferdinand and Evra. We have been putting off the evil day. My suspicion is that the money was not really available while the debt was so high. So SAF made do - although I also think he didn't like the way the transfer market was changing and dug his heels in somewhat, and this compounded the problem.

One way or another 600m has gone out of our club to deal with debt financing. That's one great player per year. I personally hate the Glazers, and always will whether or not they turn the ship around and get us back to the level a club of our size and revenues should rightly be playing at. It seems to me that for them football is just a business investment. There's no love.

{Ed002's Note - The owners have made significant money available - and it is their club not yours.}

5.) 11 Mar 2015 19:03:58
Yes, and parts of Iraq and Syria are in the hands of ISIL but i don't have to like what they're doing with it.

I don't know what "significant" means. The facts remain - we didn't spend it or we didn't spend it wisely, which is why i did not lay the blame entirely at the hands of the Glazers. The amount that's gone out in debt payments is not in question, is it?

And finally (for the time being at least), i may not own the club, but frankly, i believe the majority of supporters would regard it as theirs in much deeper ways than is specified on the title deed.

. . but no doubt you are doing this just to rile us up!@!

{Ed002's Note - No, I am doing it because you are clearly naïve about the way the business works. Most clubs have had debt for one reason or another and those debts need to be serviced. Your analogy is of poor taste at best. Will you be happy if the club is sold to institutional investors from the Far East in 2017? Do you even understand the consequences of that? But hey, you will be rid of the Glazers.}

6.) 11 Mar 2015 20:55:57
Ed, in general not the sort of highly leveraged debt the Glazers brought to United. Are you really suggesting that the debt service requirements, in particular the very high interest PIK notes, have not had any impact on our transfer policy? If so, then i think it is you that are being naive. I actually do know enough about business to know that debt can be and maybe should be employed as a fundamental growth stimulant, but it can also be suffocating. And this is particularly so when debt is entered into not for growth but for the purpose of acquisition.

Personally i think the Glazers have been very lucky. What state do you think we would be in today had SAF not managed to continue our remarkable run of success? I do give them credit for their marketing acumen, which has been vital to our viability.

I am a United fan, and to some extent I don't really care who owns the club. I'm interested in the football. But in any event just
because i don't approve of what the Glazers did, it doesn't mean to say I'll approve of the next bunch of owners more, whoever they may turn out to be. Football is about so much more than money for most of us. Just look at the global reach of the sport and then compare the revenue size of the biggest clubs compared to the major corporations. The 500th biggest corporation on the Fortune 500 has revenues apprx. 9 times that of United. Most of the world probably hasn't even heard of 400 of them. Yes, football is a business, but it's so much more than that.

{Ed002's Note - I am not sure what you have "Googled" but the PIK notes were a means to an end. None of it has impinged on transfer policy as I would think as some sort of high-flyer would know. What you are clearly missing is that clubs do not make a profit to re-invest in the team - it really doesn't work that way.

I am glad you don't care who owns the club. Your ignorance will protect you in the longer term.}

7.) 12 Mar 2015 00:03:01
I think the way in which the club was brought will always go against the owners but the way the club has progressed as a business under them is impressive, the revenue that been achieved now is what will see the club continue to grow. its just had to suffer in a short term for a long term gain in my eyes

8.) 11 Mar 2015 22:51:14
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on the how or whether the debt affected transfer activity. Empirical evidence would suggest it did.

The issue with the PIK notes was the very high interest rates attached to them. Yes, they were a means to an end, and financially it's worked out well for the Glazers. But they had nothing to do with a means to an end vis-a-vis the football.

I can fully understand how ownership by an institutional investor will push the club towards maximizing profits as a primary objective, but i don't see how that's any different to what we have now. Just a different set of faces in the boardroom, running the club for business purposes. There's simply no basis upon which to prejudge the next owners without knowing who they will be, how much they're paying, and what their investment objectives are.

{Ed002's Note - What empirical evidence is that? If you truly think that institutional ownership will have no more impact than a "different set of faces in the boardroom" you have absolutely no understanding about any of this. And what is the relevance of "how much they are paying". We avoid these discussions because people like you simply don't understand.}

9.) 12 Mar 2015 12:22:08
I don't really mind the Glazers, I would prefer someone who loved football though but they aren't that bad at all. What Ed002 has said about institutional ownership could be a lot worse but we could as easily end up with a multi billionaire owner that isn't bothered about taking cash out of the club.




.eden.'s rumour replies


Click To View This Thread

20 Jul 2020 20:38:30
"DDG will naturally step aside for Henderson when the time is right" 😂 £375k contract until 2024, of course he will.




Click To View This Thread

19 May 2019 06:56:17
I've found it hard to convey sarcasm in text mort, people just assume you must be an idiot! 😂.




Click To View This Thread

07 Jan 2019 23:17:24
A 10-15 goal a season midfielder, that's only got 10 twice and never 15.




Click To View This Thread

28 Sep 2018 01:09:50
Dire since fergi, pick out young, smalling and Jones all fergi signings.




Click To View This Thread

16 Aug 2018 11:15:28
What will you use the money for?





.eden.'s banter replies


Click To View This Thread

23 Mar 2020 16:43:04
Banshee or the league are amazing shows imo if anyones looking for something to watch.




Click To View This Thread

14 Feb 2020 23:00:12
You mention the fa wouldn't take the chance on going to court with the evidence UEFA has, If city or whoever take UEFA or the FA to the CAS and win do they have a high claim for compensation, or what's the risk, if any to the accuser?


{Ed002's Note - Thry are far from that.}



Click To View This Thread

23 Jan 2020 23:30:09
Sky are reporting that utd messed them about:

"United agreed a £55m deal in principle with Sporting, only to lower their offer to £42m after hearing the Portuguese club were in desperate need for money before the end of this month"

"Jorge Mendes flew to Manchester with Sporting's president, Frederico Varandas, and his director of football, Hugo Viana, to finalise a deal with United's executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.

Following the conclusion of their trip to the UK, Varandas' mood was mixed. He was sorry to be losing a star player, but glad that a transfer fee of £55m had been agreed in principle with United.

In the days that followed, Varandas' optimism was tempered by a change in stance from United.

Rather than progressing with the agreed £55m deal, United said they were only willing to offer £42m for Fernandes.

United, prompted by the belief Sporting were desperate for funds before the end of this month, thought the Portuguese club would accept the lower offer"




Click To View This Thread

04 Nov 2019 22:50:12
i think the sin bin could really benifit the game, red cards ruin games, most games after a red the games basically over and its dull as, with one team under the cosh and unable to attack. A lot of red cards are more than yellows, but a red is very harsh. if 2 stupid yellows or a reckless but not overly dangerous challenge got you a man down for 10/ 20 mins, but not the whole game, so you could try and hold out and then come back, i think it would add to the excitement. obviously really dangerous tackles should still be red.




Click To View This Thread

21 Sep 2019 23:53:03
So if you're in a position where you're the most desirable Candidate and city offer you the highest wages and largest transfer budget and say arsenal offer you less for both, you would choose the arsenal offer?