[Archived] Glazer Set For Utd

[ainscough99]

it looks as if malcom glazer is finally going to take over man utd after securing a deal with magnier and mcmanus

[bellamy11]

I'm not particularly well informed when it comes to this matter and the implications, but according to the BBC, Glazer has reportedly secured the shares of McManus and Magnier, giving him 59% of the club's shares, and has thus launched a formal ?790m takeover bid.

Now I'm no expert, but does this mean it has to be accepted? And, if so, what are the realistic implications?

[promoted2001]

Pretty much, looks like his the new owner.

[ainscough99]

http://skysports.planetfootball.com/ARTICLE.ASP?ID=276208

[Scotty]

The takeover doesn't have to be accepted but Glazer was legally obliged to make the offer once he bought more than 30% of the shares.

According the the Shareholders United web-site, Glazer needs to secure 75% of the shares before he can turn the company private. So, if he gets another 16% of the shares it'll be fun and games down at OT this summer.

[bellamy11]

Is there any possible way that this could turn out to be a good thing for Manchester United?

[Scotty]

Is there any possible way that this could turn out to be a good thing for Manchester United?

To be fair to Glazer, he's been very successful with American football teams (I'm sure our American chums can fill us in here). However, as I understand it, he's achieved his success at the expense of the fans by hiking up ticket prices and basically selling the soul of the club / team.

As Man U doesn't have a soul anyway though I'm not sure what he'll do at United.

[stuwilky]

Is there any possible way that this could turn out to be a good thing for Manchester United?

The thing that needs to be remembered is that Manchester United are only profitable because they are good on the pitch. If they arent performaing on the pitch, they have serious worries financially.

I certainly cant see Glazer slashing the transfer budget for example.

[broadsword]

There's a lesson in there for Rovers!

Jack was considering turning the club public, I'm thankful that he didn't.

You can easily fall prey to people who see the club in purely monetary terms, rather than equating success with money, they equate extracting as much money as possible whilst spending s0d all, as their aim.

Or so it would seem, anyway.

Long way from Michael Knighton making a ?10m bid anyhow.

[Scotty]

The other main reason United fans are against the Glazer takeover (apart from the prospect of higher ticket prices) is the level of debt that the club would find itself in.

If Glazer aquires the necessary shares and turns the company private he will own a company that is hundreds of millions in debt. That's because Glazer has had to borrow most of the money needed to buy United. It would only take a year or two of losses, or even less-than-expected profits, before some of Glazer's lenders might decide to call in their debts. Then United would be in a Leeds situation.

It's all hugely entertaining really.

[Sparky Marky]

I think Malcolm Glazer has made a monumental mistake by buying the Cubik shares at a vastly inflated price, just to seize power. Utd are, in my opinion at their most vunerable on the pitch with the end of an era looming and possibly mediocrity afoot.

This means that without the success on the pitch, coupled with the ongoing animosity within the supporters, who incidentally I feel are one of the most partisan of followers once something pisses them off, Utd and ultimately Glazer will fail.

He's turning one of the few clubs who make a profit into one with magnificent debt problems.....The mind boggles!!!

[Flopsy]

It's all hugely entertaining really.

I know its hillarious

[Guest Kamy100]

From what I have heard he has also bought Harry Dobson's shares which equate to 8%. So he is above 65% now.

[BRFC4EVA]

It's all hugely entertaining really.

I know its hillarious

I agree, this has the potential to ruin Man united, how can anyone not find it fun? Perhaps all their money and greed has caught up with them, if they had united fans in charge instead of those 2 irishmen this situation couldnt have happened. However as they are so driven by money, the irishmen are in charge and this has happened, a lesson there.

However i do feel sorry for the genuine united gans as they're aint a lot they can do. If 20,000 real fans boycott the games then part-time people who dont understand the situation will merley come and take their place. Had to laugh at 1 comment by a guy from the united supporters group. He said that because of todays news, he had 'ripped up his s/t on the spot'. Boy that must have taken some doing, what with the last home game on the season have already been played!

He needs 75% to take them off the stock exchange.

[Dan Furness]

Oh im going to have a pint to celebrate this tonight, he really is going to take them to the cleaners. Cant wait to see what the 'reds' in Ossy have to say tonight. Cant wait till he gets over 75% and he can transfer debt.

Mind you the armchair fans will be rejoycing, they might actually be able to get a seat!

[M-K]

If Glazer aquires the necessary shares and turns the company private he will own a company that is hundreds of millions in debt.

That's crazy - why would he do something like that? And who would have loaned him the money if that was his intention?

I don't see it as a bad thing for United fans. They're moaning because they don't like the thought of the club being owned by a fat, ginger American pensioner, when the reality is he'll probably want to see them do the Champions League before old age gets him in a couple of years' time.

[T4E]

You're living in a dream World if you think Glazer is trying to seize hold of Man United so he can help them win the Champions League! I'd be surprised if he's ever even heard of the Champions League.

[tmap]

This is all very misleading.

This notion that he's "putting them into massive debt" is wrong. They effectively put themselves into that debt when they went public. It's quite normal for Glazer to borrow money to finance the purchase - even if he did have $1.5bn spare cash knocking around, if he can fund the purchase via a cheap secured loan then logically he should.

Glazer strikes me as much better qualified to run Man Yoo than the clowns who currently run it, and far-sighted Man Yoo fans should see this as a positive step.

What's more, this idea that Man Yoo are a salt-of-the-earth fans' club run by altruistic do-gooders is just plain daft.

[Ste B]

Whilst this appears to be rather amusing at the moment, there is one potential issue that would affect rovers.

How will he pay back the loans ??

Well, the most marketable thing they have are the TV rights, currently the collective bargaining system ensures all premier league clubs get a decent deal. If this was to be scrapped, then its potentially devastating for clubs with Rovers appeal outside Lancashire.

[roversWASmylife]

Mind you the armchair fans will be rejoycing, they might actually be able to get a seat!

That's what will happen, I know some 'hardcore' Reds who aren't renewing and from what they say, many others aren't.

If Glazer gets 75% and 1 share or something he can if he wants, sack the board and bring in his own.

[Rovermatt]

Will this actually be a bad thing? Some incredibly rich chap is going to buy the world's richest club. We're not talking about Wrexham here. Yes, Glazer is there to turn a profit, but Abramovich didn't buy Chelsea as an act of generosity. United's soul (if ever there was one) was flogged long ago. As a shining light of capitalism throughout the world, the club will naturally attract this kind of attention from prospective buyers. The tiresome whining emanating from these 'hardcore' supporters lacks logic and smacks of nothing more than them masquerading as fans of real club.

F*** them, and their silly banners.

Edited May 12, 2005 by Rovermatt

[cole]

Is there any possible way that this could turn out to be a good thing for Manchester United?

To be fair to Glazer, he's been very successful with American football teams (I'm sure our American chums can fill us in here). However, as I understand it, he's achieved his success at the expense of the fans by hiking up ticket prices and basically selling the soul of the club / team.

As Man U doesn't have a soul anyway though I'm not sure what he'll do at United.

i'm not sure i'd call glazer very successful with the buccaneers...

in 1995, he bought the buccs... in 1995, they would miss the playoffs, and had a losing season. but to be fair, the team was traditionally pretty crappy, so it's not glazers fault they missed the playoffs.

in 1996, glazer fired the coach and hired a new one. they would finish with a 6-10 record.

in 1997, he decided that his team's uniforms were too "girly" so he ditched the orange and red pirate, and adopted darker red, metallic "pewter", and black as the new colors, and changed the logo into a skull and pirate flag... most people agree that the new uniforms are much more professional... however, it may be a bad omen for man u fans, since glazer was so quick to discard tradition... in the NFL, it's customary to wear "throwback" jerseys every once in a while, to honor your team's history... glazer has repeated said he refuses to see his team in the old uniforms ever again. in 1997, they would finish 10-6, and a wildcard playoff spot. they were taken out in the second round of the playoffs.

in 1998, they would once again have a losing season, and miss the playoffs.

in 1999, they won their division, and finished with an 11-5 record, which was the best in team history. they would lose to st. louis in the NFC championship game. one game before the super bowl...... (and i wish they would have won that game, because my titans were in the superbowl that year... they could have beaten tampa.... but they lost to st. louis.. literally by a few inches)

in 2000, they came within 1 win of the division, but lost because the weather in green bay was too cold for them... in their wildcard playoff game, they lost because the weather in philadelphia was too cold for them

in 2001, they finished with a 9-7 record, disappointed in their coach, glazer once again fired his coach, and looked for a replacement. he decided he wanted bill parcells... but parcells wasn't completely on board with it, and tampa bay didn't have a back-up plan... when parcells turned down the job, they scrambled and panicked. they ended up hiring Jon Gruden from the Oakland Raiders... but by doing so, it cost them a lot in compensation to oakland, since gruden was already employed.

in 2002, the move for gruden would look like a genius decision... they would finish with a 12-4 record...the best in franchise history. they would go into the playoffs very strong, and end up making it to the super bowl. gruden and the buccs would play oakland (the team that gruden coached the previous season). this would be a huge advantage for tampa, since gruden knew the oakland offensive playbook and players so well that they easily won the super bowl. this year was definately successful for glazer.

in 2003, after winning the super bowl, expectations were high... however the team dropped back down to it's usual mediocrity, with a 7-9 record...

in 2004, they would finish with a 5-11 record, once again missing the playoffs... their miracle coach gruden looked to have peaked his first season, as they haven't looked like a team to fear for a few years.

overall, i wouldn't say he's been a failure in the NFL by any stretch of the imagination.. but to say he's been very successful is pushing it. he took a team of lovable losers, did everything he could to disavow team history, made a few questionable front-office moves... had a revolving door quarterback, won 1 super bowl, and endured several losing season....

winning a superbowl isn't easy, so kudos to him for doing that... but i'd reserve the term "very successful" for teams like the patriots, who threaten to win it all every season, because of their wonderful management and team-oriented mindset...

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Magnier and McManus....................

KERCHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!!! HAVE A NICE DAY$$$$$$$$$$$$

[stuwilky]

Whilst this appears to be rather amusing at the moment, there is one potential issue that would affect rovers.

How will he pay back the loans ??

Well, the most marketable thing they have are the TV rights, currently the collective bargaining system ensures all premier league clubs get a decent deal. If this was to be scrapped, then its potentially devastating for clubs with Rovers appeal outside Lancashire.

The profit the company makes already would service the debt.

[cole]

and just in case anyone is interested, here are the 2 different uniform that tampa has worn:

http://www.athlegraphic.com/FFP/images/1990/TampaBay92.gif

these ARE ugly, but they're part of the team's history that glazer refuses to acknowledge.

new uniforms:

http://www.athlegraphic.com/FFP/images/1990/TampaBay97A.gif

http://www.athlegraphic.com/FFP/images/1990/TampaBay97H.gif