rss twitter facebook mobile

RoM Reads

Sport Witness looks at Florida media mocking our protests against the Glazers.

The Telegraph reports on the new deal the club will offer Danny Welbeck.

Stretford End looks at the ten players we might sell.

The Daily Mail reckons we’re in for Sao Paulo’s Lucas.

The Guardian confirms John Terry will not lift the European Cup even if Chelsea win.

About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »



  1. Albert Ross says:

    wayne – good day sir!

    In my comment at 12:43 I said “If it is true that we are not able to compete in that way”

    I chose those words because I have never been shown any proof that we can’t compete for a player because Sir Alex isn’t given the money. I read pretty much all United news and opinion, and have heard many reasonable claims that are just not backed up. I can’t help but think that the evidence would be thrust into the limelight were it available.

    Two cartage contractors, one with 20 new trucks, the other with 20 trucks that are 4 years old.
    Which business is worth more? Which is more profitable? Which is better run?
    Which business do you want to buy, or to work for?

    These answers cannot be found in the information given. Much more must be considered.

    I can say that personally I don’t want to be the strongest competitor in the transfer market.
    The richest boy bought all the best easter eggs. Yay. He is amazing. Pathetic.

  2. wayne says:

    Another thing Utd spent 50 mill last summer and the rumors are pretty strong that Utd had agreements in place to sign WS and Nasri so that would’ve been close to another 50mill,being prepared to splash out 100 mill in one transfer window is not being competitive?

  3. Jeet says:

    @Wayne: Nasri was a rentboy – no question. Not too sure about the Sneijder deal – just too much speculation around it.

    I may be wrong, but I think the 160 mil that Gill spoke of was the cash balance at the time. Obviously a club like United, or for that matter, any responsible corporation can’t spend all its cash at one go. At best around a third, which is roughly what we ended up spending. I think the point is that had it not been for the debt, cash reserves would have been much higher. You could of course argue, that the cash reserves wouldn’t have been that high without higher ticket prices and generally good management which the glazers brought along. So we come to the philosophical debate of “life is a series of trade-offs” vs “it’s human and noble to always want more/better”.

    End of the day, I guess we’ll never know. Personally speaking, by my estimates the debt’s gonna be there for the next 5 years or so, and hopefully Fergie stewards us through the period.

  4. wayne says:

    The main anti glazier campaign is based on assumptions and no proof?,let’s not forget MUST wanted to ruin the club so the Red Knights could buy it cheap and what fucking happens when the Glaziers go MUST never come up with answers.All they do is run a hate campaign against the Glaziers simple as that

  5. WillieRedNut says:

    There’s not 160 million in the bank now. It’s down to 50 million. Sort of agree with Wayne. The Glazers give Fergie money last summer to spend on whoever he wanted. Sounding like a broken record, he didn’t buy a CM. My biggest problem with MUST is, they were prepared to jump into bed with these RedKnight characters. IMO, if you do that, without really knowing if they’ll follow through with a bid for the club, makes you seem foolish. At the very start, I was with MUST. They lost my trust though. That doesn’t mean they can’t have a say on matters concerning United. I’ve argued for the longest time, that everyone involved should try and find some common ground on these issues. Instead of being impassive to each others opinions.

  6. Jeet says:

    @Wayne: Please don’t confuse my issue with the glazers with support for MUST. As I mentioned, I have very little time for their propaganda, and they are anything but a credible alternative.

  7. Jeet says:

    @Willie: if it’s down to 50 mil, then we must be looking at a lean summer, right? Where else on the balance sheet would transfer money come from if not cash?

  8. WillieRedNut says:

    Jeet – That’s according to the last figures that came out. Unless the Glazers find money from somewhere else, you could well be right.

  9. AsianGuy says:

    The Glazers’ other franchise, struggling Tampa Bay Buccaneers, just spent lavishly on free agent signings. My worse fear is they are redirecting our income to their other interest. Look at the Tampa Bay
    Buccaneers, one of the worst teams in the NFL and fingers crossed they don’t let us go down the same path.

  10. denton davey says:

    Jeet @ 15:18: “if it’s down to 50 mil, then we must be looking at a lean summer, right? Where else on the balance sheet would transfer money come from if not cash?”

    There are other ways to find spending money – aren’t you forgetting that one of these day OurGloriousOwners are going to “float” shares on the Singapore exchange. I have no clue how many people will want to buy into minority positions in MUFC but one possible indicator is that when the Glazers went looking to refinance their 504 million quid debt last year they got all that money in double-quick time.

    Besides, the 50 million quid is in “cash” – it’s just an accountant’s way of fiddling the books. BUT if there is actually 50 million available to transfers this summer then I’d like to see a lot of it spent on a new box-to-box midfielder, UTD have been playing at a disadvantage since the injury/sickness double-whammy that have sidelined Owen Hargreaves and DarrenFletcherinho, who would have been key players for the last three/four years.

  11. Wakey says:

    @Albert Ross

    My statement was completely rational. It doesn’t matter how much money any club makes when that club has to live within its means and other clubs can run at massive losses. To be honest your reply seems less rational than mine as you seem confused about your argument as you critise my opinion but then go on to imply that Scott’s view is also wrong

    The club have always even in the PLC days run on the sensible business basis of wage expenditure not exceeding 50% of turnover. That’s called being responsible because too much over that figure is where clubs start to run into problems. Have a look at the following table and see how much of their turnover most clubs spend 

    City spend 14% more than they make just on wages which is just crazy. Obviously our total figure shows we can still challenge to a point but that’s been acheived by good business driving revenues but if it’s one of those players like Nasri last summer or Robben in the past who are more driven by money rather than the chance to play for a team of real history and a team thats one of the Greats of World football then we will always lose out to a sugar daddy funded club as they don’t have to worry about spending money they don’t have.

  12. mancdub says:

    I’ve just re read the sports witness article and can not find anything remotely idiotic in STR’s reply.
    The whole theme of the piece is a pisstake. Who’s booing now?
    Most of us actually. 
    I’ve yet to meet a fellow red that gives a flying fuck about the Forbes list.
    United were a  huge global brand before the Glazers arrived. 
    I’m not anti Glazer. But they sold the best player in the world for a huge profit and didn’t reinvest.
    That for me is unforgivable.
    They should of invested the Ronaldo money in the squad and don’t tell us the money is there if Fergie wants it. Because everyone knows that’s bullshit.

  13. Albert Ross says:


    Your description of what Scott had said was not rational or accurate.

    I simply explained where Scott was coming from.
    I then expressed a view of mine.

    You were not bothered to represent Scott’s view properly. Now you distort my comment through your lack of attention to what I said. That is not a usable foundation for a decent discussion.

    If you wish to resubmit a comment to me based on my actual response I will be happy to read it and converse further. Clearly I’m not going to respond to or even study your straw man argument.

    Shall we try again mate?

  14. mancdub says:

    I would hate to have a sugar daddy owner but United is the Glazers sugar daddy.


You must be logged in to post a comment.