Recently, a number of media reports have reported that Manchester United are preparing to sell some players in the summer window to raise transfer funds, and are preparing to play a big job in this summer window. All of these media outlets mentioned a key word: Manchester United needs to comply with the law of financial fairness. There are two rules of financial fairness that Manchester United need to meet, one from the Premier League must not lose more than £105 million for three consecutive seasons, Manchester United lost £115 million last season; and one from UEFA's FSR, which requires that transfer + salary expenses should not exceed 90% of operating income.
These two rules limit United's recruitment methods, and it is no longer a question of whether Manchester United have enough transfer funds, but Manchester United's profligacy over the past few seasons, making it impossible for Manchester United to continue to attract high signings in the summer window. This question brings to another discussion: Glazer has invested heavily in Manchester United's signings for many years, Glazer is an enviable boss, it is Manchester United's coaching staff who do not compete and spend so much money but do not bring results.
This "non-stick" theory is actually familiar to us, and we have seen it in some international players, always grasping only one point to get rid of all criticism and accusations. As the owner of a club, it's one thing for the club to be willing to spend money on signings, but it's another thing to manage. If you say that Manchester United's coaching staff doesn't know how to employ people, was the coaching staff appointed by Glazer? Was Manchester United's management appointed by Glazer? Is it irresponsible for you to fail to pick the right people and then blame all the problems on the management and coaching staff?
The owner of a club is indeed not suitable for transition to the management of the club, Glazer does not even dare to go to Old Trafford to watch the game, and their specific operation of the club only stops at the level of personnel appointment and investment in the club. But Woodward was always appointed by Glazer, right? What is called top management, maybe you should look at Manchester City, everyone has seen Manchester City's transfer investment is huge, so that Guardiola has 2 players with main positions in each position.
However, you don't see Manchester City's transfer revenue, which was €160 million in 2022, €93.8 million in 2021, €64 million in 2020 and €71 million in 2019. Over the past four seasons, City have reached €388 million in transfer revenue alone, ensuring that City can maintain a high investment every season within the limits of the law of financial fairness.
This is the accuracy of the signing, every player who joins Manchester City can get an increase in value and competitive value in Manchester City, thus achieving a virtuous circle of competitive status. Don't talk about Manchester City's being accused of yin and yang contracts and false sponsorships by the Premier League, which have allowed Manchester City to form a more rapid way to form the competitiveness of the Premier League, and now their operating income has surpassed Manchester United, as well as Real Madrid, and the number of new fans they have added in recent years will unsurprisingly exceed Manchester United. Their previous violations are not necessarily linked to Manchester City's current healthy management.
See? Manchester City's bosses are also hugely invested in Manchester City, but the ultimate goal is to form a virtuous circle of Manchester City, just like Abou took charge of Chelsea in the later period, with the club forming competitiveness and participating in the championship as the process, the ultimate goal is to achieve a virtuous circle of the club's financial situation. Manchester United, under Glazer's management, achieved a vicious circle, and when it was time to invest heavily in strengthening the squad, the lack of funds led to a lack of signings.
Glazer appointed Woodward and took a lawyer to transfer talks that were once a laughing stock in European football, and Glazer is not responsible for this? Manchester United have changed five regular managers in the last 10 years, is Glazer not responsible? Manchester United have not overhauled Old Trafford since 2006, is Glazer not responsible? What did Glazer pay in the management of Manchester United, he paid more than £1.5 billion from Manchester United through a dividend of £22 million a season and the sale of part of Manchester United's shares, which is too cheap.
It has also been said that Manchester United is Glazer's personal possession and that he has absolute control over Manchester United. So, I can tell you that the saying "the customer is God" is always right, the fans are the source of the club's brand reputation, brand value, and the annual matchday revenue at Old Trafford brings hundreds of millions of pounds to Manchester United, and these revenues always come from the fans. It's true that Glazer has the final say in the internal management of Manchester United, but what is the product you deliver? Every year, a huge investment is made to shoot a bunch of bad films, blame the script, blame the creator, blame the actor, the boss does not have the slightest responsibility, this boss is too easy to be.