[Archived] Glazer Set For Utd

coffeeman · May 13, 2005

In other words; In the end the supporters pay the whole party for him.

That's true of any club.

Of course I know that....

However at which price?

By the way, I'm only writing what I know the case is amongst Scum supporters, it's not my concerns.

I'm actually enjoying this, funniest thing in footy since we played the dingles

philipl · May 13, 2005

Aaargh American.

I'm not and have not said Glazer won't make money out of the Mancs.

I am saying there is not enough in the ManU "franchise" to generate the money he needs from Man U without also doing massive damage to the rest of football- particularly to a club like Blackburn Rovers.

To come up with the size of cash surplusses he needs, he has to swing TV money away from the other Prem clubs and into the pockets of the Mancs. I cannot see any realistic alternative.

He would also be very much in favour of European super league to generate the cash he needs from the Mancs.

That is why the guy is an absolute menace.

However, that isn't to say there is no risk the Mancs will be a financial bloody nose for Glazer.

He is gambling many millions on the Mancs not getting turned over in the third qualifying round of the Champs League next season for a start- a call to Ibrox will tell him what that feels like.

Then Managers like Moyes, Benitez, Allardyce, Jol, McLaren (and dare we hope?) Hughes might continue to make significant relative improvements compared with the Mancs whilst Chelsea and Arsenal disappear over the horizon. Is it that difficult to envisage the Mancs spending ?20m on transfers this summer and continuing to slide? I doubt ?20m is enough to buy sufficient Champs League- quality players to plug all the gaps in the current Manc squad.

Plus, under rule changes proposed by UEFA today, the Mancs would have too much debt in 2007 to be granted a license to enter European competition.

None of these scenarios in themselves is individually very probable but add them all up and Glazer is gambling with a lot of other people's money.

Meantime Mr loyalty Steve Bruce signals his willingness to work for Glazer.

USABlue · May 13, 2005

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.

Exactly who do you mean by they? Is there a choice for who is in charge? Who would pick whether the fans were in charge or the Irishmen? Do you really understand what it is you are saying? I don't.

If I was a United fan, I would be really really concerned but then again I would not have left early at our last home game either. My gut feeling is that this spells the end of Man U, I get the feeling Glazer is ego driven and if that is the case once he takes control he is going to have to pee on all four corners, show who's boss I expect nothing but trouble for Man U.

I know most of you hate them but they are to be commended for helping make the EPL a household (well better known) name over here.

Anti Euro Smiths Fan · May 13, 2005

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

I agree with Ste B that while it's nice to see Red Scum fans up in arms, in the long-term the bearded American gnome could be bad news for the whole of football.

One of Glazer's main interests would be to increase the profitability of United's TV rights. I'd be concerned that a break-up of collective TV Premiership rights would benefit the richer clubs at the expense of smaller ones.

Glazer is a dangerous man - "a snake in sheep's clothing" as one American judge put it.

He's a man who breaks his promises. When buying the Buccaneers, he promised the Tampa authorities he would go halves on a new stadium with them. After getting control, he backed out of the deal and gave Tampa two years to build it themselves or he would move the team to another city. The Jewish tycoon then sued Tampa fans for defamation after they complained about being moved to inferior seats at the new stadium.

When Glazer owned a trailor park he put up the rents for elderly residents and tried to charge tenants extra for having pets and babies. He was known as the "slumlord".

Glazer's sister says: "No one who has ever worked with him has a good word to say about him. He's incredibly mean."

I don't think the United players will be too happy about Glazer taking over. (Especially Rio Ferdinand who's trying to get his hands on a 120 grand a week pay deal.)

This is what some of United's players had to say earlier in the season:

Ole Gunnar Solskaer: "I'm absolutely on the side of the fans who don't want him at the club."

Ryan Giggs: "Of course we sympathise with the views of the fans."

Rio Ferdinand: "The club's interest should be with people who have grown up with the club."

I hope Mr Glazer does as much damage to United as possible without damaging the whole of football....

Manchester Blue · May 13, 2005

Should be on the Glazier thread.

I've not seen any thread about people who fit windows. Where is it?

Anti Euro Smiths Fan · May 13, 2005

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

I agree with Ste B that while it's nice to see Red Scum fans up in arms, I'm concerned that in the long-term the bearded American gnome could be bad news for the whole of football.

One of Glazer's main interests would be to increase the profitability of TV rights. A break-up of the collective TV Premiership rights would benefit the richer clubs at the expense of smaller ones.

Glazer is a dangerous man - "a snake in sheep's clothing" as one American judge put it.

When buying the Buccaneers, he promised the Tampa authorities he would go halves on a new stadium with them. After getting control, he backed out of the deal and gave Tampa two years to build it themselves or he would move the team to another city. The Jewish tycoon then sued Tampa fans for defamation after they complained about being moved to inferior seats at the new stadium.

When Glazer owned a trailor park he put up the rents for elderly residents and tried to charge tenants extra for having pets and babies. He was known as the "slumlord".

As Glazer's sister says: "No one who has ever worked with him has a good word to say about him. He's incredibly mean."

I don't think the United players will be too happy with Glazer taking over. (Especially Rio Ferdinand who's trying to get his hands on a 120 grand a week pay deal.)

This is what some of the players had to say earlier in the season:

Ole Gunnar Solskaer: "I'm absolutely on the side of the fans who don't want him at the club."

Ryan Giggs: "Of course we sympathise with the views of the fans."

Rio Ferdinand: "The club's interest should be with people who have grown up with the club and have got it's interest at heart."

I hope that Mr Glazer does as much damage to United without damaging the whole of football....

Parasyte · May 13, 2005

In fairness, if he fecks up the EPL for a few years, it will drive prices into the ground, and although it may see us drop to League One sort of status, given that we have the JW Trust behind us, it could see us rise quite astronomically. Of course thats the rosy side, and I'd rather he just bugger ManUre up, but sticking lots of teams in the financial shitter wouldnt effect us as many of the current Prem clubs, and clubs that would suffer when promoted.

Although the chances are we'd go down and stay down, but hey ho, if it saw Man Utd play non-league it would be almost worth it.

Now I am in dream-land...

seahawkdad · May 13, 2005

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.

...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...

Which might mean that, abandoning all tradition, he might build one of these over Old Trafford to match the one at the Buccaneers' stadium...

And, yes, they really do fire cannon when the Bucs score...

Edited May 13, 2005 by seahawkdad

American · May 13, 2005

To come up with the size of cash surplusses he needs, he has to swing TV money away from the other Prem clubs and into the pockets of the Mancs. I cannot see any realistic alternative.

I don't think the UK rights are the issue, I see him more going on his own for overseas rights, especially here in the US and in the Far East. Currently on the Yankee's TV network (YES), they show all MU matches on a 3 or 4 day delayed basis. He probably wants to make a way to show all matches live on PPV or Satellite feeds to pubs here in the states, much like Celtic and Rangers currently do.

From what I understand, the overseas rights do not bring much in to Rovers, so he would be making a new market, not taking away from an existing one.

As for the trailer parks, god forbid someone try to get market value rents for their properties. That might be evil and capitalistic, a PLC wouldn't want that kind of owner. [/sarcasm]

Interesting theory from an English co-worker United fan over visiting: He thinks that Beckham will be back in Manchester next season.

USABlue · May 13, 2005

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.

...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...

Which might mean that, abandoning all tradition, he might build one of these over Old Trafford to match the one at the Buccaneers' stadium...

And, yes, they really do fire cannon when the Bucs score...

Or Utd could end up actually PLAYING in that Stadium.

blue phil · May 13, 2005

To come up with the size of cash surplusses he needs, he has to swing TV money away from the other Prem clubs and into the pockets of the Mancs. I cannot see any realistic alternative.

He would also be very much in favour of European super league to generate the cash he needs from the Mancs.

That is why the guy is an absolute menace.

At present the rules are such that a large majority (3/4 ?) of the premier league clubs would have to approve of any change to the current method of distributing TV money . They are hardly likely to do that . (Whether or not future internet scourced money could bypass that is another issue ...)

As for any so called Euro "super" league - well , it wouldn't have the tradition to generate any serious money . A cup competition is one thing ; fans , however , would soon lose any interest in MU playing Bruges , Eindhoven etc twice a season ...Fans like their tradition . They like a bit of passion which only the prem can offer on a week to week basis .

For those of us who are interested in football and a truly competitive league NOT based solely on monetary values a breakaway Euro league would be like manna from heaven . If Glazer manages to change the premier league by taking away the "big" clubs , he'll go my xmas card list .

I tend to think that there simply isn't any more money to be squeezed from "real" fans in England - and subsequently the prawn sandwich clubs will lose their marketability .

Philly Rover ® · May 13, 2005

Thought I'd throw my two cents in on the whole issue.

American, what you quoted from the Guardian makes a lot of sense, but when you consider Glazer's age and his primary goal (to make money), it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility to think that he would spend just enough to keep United in the Champions League whilst drastically hiking ticket and merchandising prices in order to maximize profit. As philip said, "Is it that difficult to envisage the Mancs spending ?20m on transfers this summer and continuing to slide? I doubt ?20m is enough to buy sufficient Champs League- quality players to plug all the gaps in the current Manc squad."

The end product of this scenario? Glazer keeps the team competitive enough for the next five to ten years so that he can make money off of them, then sucks them dry for everything they're worth, leaving them in an incredibly shaky position when he sells them at as large a profit as possible.

As for how he's going to maximize that profit, one way is to purchase marketable players, e.g. Beckham (as you suggested as a possibility, American). Glazer could urge/force whatever manager is under him to purchase the Beckhams and Figos of the world--good players still, to be sure, but ones who won't benefit the club long-term on the pitch. Off the pitch, however, they would allow Glazer to maximize merchandising profit.

Other possibilities include the aforementioned European Superleague, which is certainly a scary prospect. As I said above, if Glazer is really in it to make as much money as possible--as it certainly seems he is--then he'll explore every possible avenue for doing so, regardless of any traditions. As others have said, it will be up to the other European clubs to reject any notion of such a Superleague in order to preserve the integrity of football as a whole. Much of this is brought up in a Soccernet article which discusses some of these possibilities.

Soccernet.com article: "Sold Trafford"

In the end I have to say that I echo AESF's thoughts on the matter:

I hope Mr Glazer does as much damage to United as possible without damaging the whole of football....

Oh, and I almost forgot to add that I'd love to see the following, because these two would be absolutely perfect for each other:

Meantime Mr loyalty Steve Bruce signals his willingness to work for Glazer.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Philly Rover ®

philipl · May 13, 2005

American, I am not completely sure about the overseas rights but...

The Premiership division of cash between the clubs did not decrease by as much as the drop in Sky income when the CEU misguidedly got involved (but didn't pursue a far more monopolistic deal in France) because international TV rights revenues rose from GBP 100m to GBP 180m and were distributed as part of the Premiership pool. In other words, if its a Prem game, the Prem sells it whether you are in Boston Lincs or Boston MA.

Rantic and Celgers of course screwed an opt out from the Sunday Pubbers to get as much TV revenue as they could squeeze to earn the right to come bottom of whatever Euro mini-Group they could claw their way into.

I accept that Glazer must believe he can make money out of the Mancs and he has obviously convincved NM Rothschild that he can write a business plan to support somebody lending him £550m for his transatlantic buccaneering and changing ball shapes.

However, NM Rothschilds (a small player with a big name) only really needed convincing the £790m was going to be there when needed and as soon as they had sussed Cubic would be predictably self-interested they were on to earning a VERY SPECTACULAR fee from a "difficult" deal. The brand of corporate dope the Glazers are on is none of the Rothschild business so long as there were enough (American?) Fund Managers sniffing the stuff to bankroll the Glazers.

JP Morgan walked out of this transaction, remember, and that says everything an intelligent person needs to know about this deal:

IT STINKS.

Irrespective of TV rights, Euro Leagues or whatever, the Glazers have leveraged their own GBP250m to buy GBP800m of assets. You can therefore be sure:

1) The Glazers will asset strip and do whatever they need to do to MUFC to make sure their own GBP250m comes home safe to the family with a healthy return on top (that will be the real game- get their own cash out and the external lenders can cry the way they did at Leeds if things don't work out).

2) If the Glazers do not succeed in breaking the 14% of MUFC currently in the hands of the Independent Shareholders sufficiently to own 90% of MUFC which would mean they can force the sale of the remaining 10% to themselves, the legal battles over minority interest as the Glazers attempt to do what they need to do could become immense.

Post Script- A different part of JP Morgan from the corporate deal makers has loaned Glazer GBP 250m.

Also Shareholders United hold 8% of Man U and not 14% as was claimed at one time. This will explain why Man U's share price now stands at 1.5p ABOVE the 300p Glazer offer price. There could be a battle for that key 2% of Man U in which case they are free to offer over 300p but Glazer cannot without raising his offer to every shareholder- the difficulty for Shareholders United is finding GBP 4m for that 2% knowing that all it will do is buy the right to spend a lot on lawyers and be used to frustrate the business objectives of the majority shareholder and therefore be effectively valueless from the moment it is "invested".

Edited May 14, 2005 by philipl

tashor · May 13, 2005

Friends, Rovers, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury manure, not to praise them.

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

So let it be with manure. The nob'ead scum

Hath told you manure were ambitious:

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,

And grievously hath manure answer'd it.

Here, under leave of Glazer and the press -

For Glazer is an honourable man;

So are they all, all honourable men -

Come I to speak at manure's funeral.

They weren't my friends - scum, and not just to me:

But Glazer says he is ambitious;

And Glazer is an honourable man.

He hath brought many captives home to Tampa

Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:

Did this in manure seem suspicious?

When that the poor have cried, manure hath laughed:

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:

Yet Glazer says he was ambitious;

And Glazer is an honourable man.

You all did see that at the Buccaneers

Who oft presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did never refuse: was this ambition?

Yet Glazer says he was ambitious;

And, sure, he is an honourable man.

I speak not to disprove what Glazer spoke,

But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did hate him once, not without cause:

What cause withholds you then, to worship him?

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish @#/?s,

And manure have lost their reason. Bear with me;

My laughter is in the coffin there with manure,

And I must hope it doesn't come back to me.

OnePost · May 13, 2005

Talking to my mate who's a ST at Old Trafford. He has been to all the demo's etc and was saying that the Fans are thinking of setting up a break away club like Wimbledon fans did when they relocated. Don't know if it will happen but they seem pretty P***ed off.

Anybody else heard this tune pop into their head today ?

I know a fat old policeman

He's always on our street.

A fat and jolly red-faced man

He really is a treat

He never can stop laughing

He says he's never tried.

But once he did arrest a man

And laughed until he cried!