Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by yorkie19, May 12, 2005.
A black day for football.
Unless you're a Celtic fan. With the "Coolmore Mafia" now out of Man U where might they look to invest some of their millions. How about a wee club in the east end of Glasgow where their good friend and golfing partner Dermot Desmond is already the majority shareholder.
Anyway, don't be so quick to write off Glazer. He did take the Tampa Bay Bucs to a superbowl championship after years of getting nowhere. Also knows all about the American sports market where the Man U brand has the potential to be absolutely huge.
Maybe. But I'm not a United fan because of the possibility of their marketing dominance. Glazer's bid is financed by a large quantity of debt (the same way, incidentally, that he bought the Bucs in the first place). To service the debt he will have to raise ticket prices. There is even talk about selling Old Trafford and then leasing it back.
I can't kid myself that his involvement in United is one of a football fan who wants to do well (which can even be levelled against Abramovitch). He is looking to make as much money out of Manchester United as he can, and I just don't believe that in the long term this goal is condusive with one of running a football club.
Steve - When Glazer took over the Bucs, he raised prices. His original proposal to buy United included measures to increase the revenue on match-days by raising ticket prices at Old Trafford.
A lot has been made of Glazer as a saviour of sorts in the Tampa Bay area. However, he bought a failing football team and talked the city council into funding a new stadium. United are a successful club who don't need a new stadium.
Although the achieved big-time in 2002, the Bucs have slipped back into mediocrity in the last two years. Indeed, they couldn't even have a winning season in 2004 (finishing 5-11), so Glazer certainly hasn't been the 2nd coming in Florida.
Actually, I meant talk. Again Glazer's original proposal outlined a strategy of selling Old Trafford and leasing it back.
I'm not suggesting that fans themselves own any clubs (with the exception of my local team). However, whether we talk about Doug Ellis, Ken Bates, Roman Abramovitch, Simon Jordan, Milan Manderic, Jack Walker, Freddie Sheppherd etc, the control of most big clubs is in the hands of people who are football fans.
Glazer has never vocally identified himself as a football fan. He's never been seen publically watching football. Indeed this deal isn't even using Malcolm Glazer's money.
I'd love to be proved wrong about Malcolm Glazer and to find that he is actually a closet United fan who is prepared to pump millions into the club to fund transfers and youth player development. However, I suspect he is looking to make money out of football, and out of the fans.
I look at the last club who tried to run the club by financing through debt. Strangely, they didn't do too well.
I wonder if he plans on starting a new MLS team ManUSA (simliar to what Chivas has done) Then ManU could have a farm club to raise up their young talent.
We'll have some of his money at Forest!!! it could be worse sam!, you could be playing League 1 footie next season
Man Utd already have a feeder club at Royal Antwerp in Belgium... As the article stated, if he gets enough shares he can shift all his debts onto the club, which aren't small once he's bought all those shares. I honestly can't see anything positive he can do for the club, all I can see is the huge amount of negative impact he can have on the club and fans. If he's going to lumber the club with a load of debt, are they going to be able to buy the players they had lined up for this summer, that are so desperately needed if they are to catch up with Chelsea??
Both the points you make there could be debated for their accuracy. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that your points could be challenged.
Firstly, United are a successful club.
By whose criteria? They haven't won the Premiership for two years and Champions League for five years.
Secondly, if the stadium sells out for every match, which I believe it does, then maybe there IS a requirement for a new and bigger stadium. I believe that the latest ground extension paid for itself in additional revenue inside two years. That's a pretty healthy payback.
There has been a lot of talk about Glazer raising ticket prices to service the debt that he will put the club into. Well there is something that United fans can do.....don't pay, stay away.
Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen because, and I'm not just talking football here, however high the price of a commodity gets there's always someone silly enough to pay it. You can see that in the price of replica shirts.
Allegedly, a large number of season ticket holders wil not now renew next year so clubs within driving distance of Surrey ought to benefit:biggrin:
Neither Julie or myself are football fans, so please can someone explain what the problem is?
Have you not read the posts above Tim?!
In the words of a well known DJ on Key 103 (Manchester radio station)
"we don't need a sad old bearded American Chav!!"
Also from the same station, plans for a new team "Manchester Reunited" with Eric Cantona as manager. :clap:
United had a fanatstic time in the 90's winning with (Arsenal apart) hardly any opposition in the premier league, Chelsea have come along and made it a 3 way copmetition (Man Utd, Arsenalm Chlsea - the last 3 winners of EPL).
Assumng that we win the FA Cup (only some little southern team to beat) we will still have won a major trophy in each of the l;ast 3 seasons - hardly disasterous by any standards, ask Liverpool, Tottenham, Real Madrid, etc
As for the stasium plans are already under way to inc rease the capacity (I think to somewhere near the 75,000 mark)
Finally United is my club and whovere owns it and wether I agree with them or not I can not change club so I will still but replica shirts, etc.
ahem - the little southern team that won 7-0 on Tuesday I recall
Nice to see the man U fans claiming the FA Cup is so important now. Funny thats not always been the case...........
I don't know any United fans who've claimed that the FA Cup isn't important.
At the end of the day, I have to agree with Steve. Although it is a very black day for me, and I can't help having a bad feeling about all this, I've been a United fan for nearly 30 years, and I can't imagine supporting anyone else.
I can only hope that the Glazer family don't screw up.
A couple of points that might make United fans feel a bit better -
It's true that when the Glazers bought the Tampa Bay NFL franchise it had never really been successful in terms of winning. The quick turnaround was because they hired a good general manager (who was charged with getting in the best players) and a good coach (who was charged with getting those players to actually play). They did not attempt to actually run the sport part of the team themselves. The same approach (hire good people who know the sport) should work as well in English football as it does in American football.
Second, someone in an earlier post noted that the Tampa Bay franchise has fallen back since they won the championship. It is very difficult to maintain championship performance in the NFL - the league's rules are intentionally set up to penalize successful teams in order to increase the chances of close competition. And many of the problems with the NFL team in the last two seasons have to do with player injuries - not the fault of the ownership at all.
I'm not sure that the Glazers really know what they're getting into, but I don't think it's a complete disaster for United fans (issues of national loyalty aside).
Potentially not, although it's rare for a Superbowl winning team to go off the boil quite so dramatically. Generally, teams compete into the post-season for a number of years (Pats, Packers, Broncos, Rams and historically the 'Skins). I accept what you are saying about the injuries that the Bucs have suffered, but they've also not held onto the players that got them to SuperBowl XXXVII (Keyshawn Johnson, Keenan McCardell etc) in part because they haven't been willing to pay the going rate (i.e. the quest for repayment on the purchase of the team!)
I'd go as far to say that I'd rather Steinbrenner had bought the team!
I'm sorry (and I know this has nothing to do with the actual topic but couldn't let this pass cos they've always been the team I've "supported") *coughs* 49ers!!! You can't not include the 49ers in that lot!!!
As long as Man Utd are successful on the pitch - i.e winning things fairly regularly and making the Champions League every year, I cannot see how Man Utd would 'do a Leeds' under Galzier.
Our problem (LUFC) came from spending money intended for a new stadium on players and their crazy wages. Although potentially massive, we had not been regularly within the champions league and winning things. Plus, although a big club we did not have the global brand that say Real Madrid, Man Utd and Chelsea have. When Leeds did not make the Champions league, we had absolutely no plan B so it was 'alll our eggs in one basket'. Although it's feasible to suggest that Man Utd may not be a top four club at some stage in the near future, they are still a massive global brand who will stand the loss. If rumour is to be believed, MUFC ticket prices will go up under Glazier but unless doubled they will pretty much fill the place.
Give the guy a chance.
Separate names with a comma.