Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mac Howard
Just because you see it as standard practice doesn't make it any more appealing 
But no one is saying that it's automatic. He may prove to be a wonderful new owner who suddenly becomes as keen on Utd's on-field success as the most avid fan - though there is little to suggest that in his behaviour or record so far. What Critch says about the slow decay may prove to be the case - but you won't be surprised to learn that that doesn't appeal to Utd fans either.
But the collapse - because the club's unable to fund the debt - is also a possibility. That's the worry. Currently the club is successful both financially and on-field and this possibility was very remote. It is the introduction of this risk that is so unacceptable.
For Utd fans it's a classic case of not being broke so don't fix it. It is difficult to see much good, from the fans point of view, coming out of this. It is easy to see disaster - a real possibility that we could go the same way as Leeds who also went into debt on the expectation of future earnings! |
1. Which is why I said that, although it's common, it isn't necessarily right.
However, I think it does refute the idea implied in that quote that Glazer is somehow an ogre, when his behaviour has really been no different than any other owner in the US.
2. It seems to me like everyone is saying it's automatic. I haven't seen too many Man U fans even saying to give it a chance. As far as the keen for on-field success part goes, that Irish duo, did they care about it? It seems like Glazer's son cares more about the sport than they did.
3. The debt is certainly a risk, I won't argue that. When I look for personal investments, the first thing I look at is cash v. debt. I think that certainly carries over to a larger scale. That doesn't mean that you can't be successful using debt as a tool. Only time will tell, which is all I'm saying. Surely some Russian billionare will bail them out in the end if it all goes to pot anyway.