Just another reason for ALL Mutiny fans to hate the Glazers

[mutinywxgirl]

http://sports.tbo.com/sports/MGBR77UE40E.html

Bid Brings Memories Of Mutiny Demise
By NICHOLAS MURRAY Tribune correspondent
Published: Oct 10, 2004


With Malcolm Glazer looking into the possibility of purchasing Manchester United, many local fans' memories of the demise of the Tampa Bay Mutiny have been brought back to the surface.
While the Glazers were in negotiations with Major League Soccer during 2001 to buy the Mutiny and keep the club alive, negotiations fell through, and the Mutiny, along with the Miami Fusion, were contracted from the league before the 2002 season.

Now, with their approach for what is the most valuable sports franchise in the world, many Mutiny fans are wondering about what could have been if Glazer had been allowed to buy the Mutiny.

``I thought it was very disappointing,'' David Harris said. Harris covered the Mutiny for the Daily Planet when the team was in Tampa. ``But there was no continuation in the franchise at the end, and that's why the fans stopped showing up.''

However, most of the blame for the Mutiny deal falling through must be laid at the feet of Major League Soccer. While the original amount that was required to purchase an MLS team was $5 million, it was documented that when the Glazers were in negotiations to buy the Mutiny from MLS, the asking price was upped by the MLS owners, which stalled the negotiations.

``From what I understand, Joel Glazer, who loves soccer, did what he could to keep the team,'' then Tampa Mayor Dick Greco said at the time when negotiations were called off. ``But the MLS owners upped the price on the investment, which changed things.''

If given a fair asking price for the Mutiny, the Glazers could have expected to turn a profit thanks to their control over Raymond James Stadiums parking, concessions and ticket sales revenue. However, the amount that they could make if the Manchester United deal goes through would be far greater, simply due to the club's standing. Despite a fall in profits of $20.4 million in 2004, they still generated a profit of $48.9 million, almost double the Buccaneers profits ($25 million) for the same period of time.

Despite the speculation that has been written about the prospective deal, the probability that a deal will be reached is still further away than reports would indicate. While there have been reported overtures made to John Magnier and J.P. McManus through their Cubic Expression holding company, the two Irishmen are still felt to be happy with their investment in Manchester United. Any takeover that Glazer would wish to attempt would effectively need the cooperation of Magnier and McManus, who are currently the largest holders in Manchester United with a stake of 29.3 percent of the shares.

[mutinywxgirl]

And more on the subject......

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041008/APS/410080768
Friday, October 8, 2004
Man U Condemns Fan Protest During Game
The Associated Press


MANCHESTER, England- Manchester United criticized fans who disrupted a game between reserve teams to protest a potential takeover of the famed English soccer club by Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer.

"Encroaching on the field of play is against the law," the club said in a statement Friday. "The club does not condone what happened. It would be unacceptable at a first-team game and it is unacceptable for the reserves."

About 30 protesters, many wearing black hoods, went on the field Thursday night during a game between Manchester United and Birmingham City reserves.

Play was held up for three minutes while the protesters unfurled a "Not for Sale" banner and tried unsuccessfully to set a U.S. flag on fire.

The protest came three days after Manchester United's board announced it received a "preliminary approach" to buy out the club. Although the club did not identify the bidder, it was widely reported to be Glazer.

Glazer's company owns a 19 percent share in the club, the second largest stake behind Irish racehorse owners J.P. McManus and John Magnier. Their company owns about 29 percent. Glazer would have to buy the Irishmen's shares to gain control of a club valued at more than $1.25 billion.

Some fans contend Glazer is interested only in making a profit and would raise ticket prices. They also question selling the club to an American with little knowledge of the game and who has never been to Old Trafford.

On Monday night, vandals threw red paint on the cars owned by a prominent Manchester United director, Maurice Watkins, who sold 1 million shares to Glazer.

[mutinywxgirl]

One more......

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1323040,00.html

United say protest is 'unacceptable'

Press Association
Friday October 8, 2004

"Get orf moi land!"

Manchester United today issued a terse response to the protesters who disrupted last night's reserve team match in Altrincham as part of their efforts to block any takeover by American billionaire Malcolm Glazer.
Supporters calling themselves the Manchester Education Committee invaded the pitch for three minutes, brandishing a "Not For Sale" banner in front of MUTV cameras.

United issued a short statement which read: "Encroaching on the field of play is against the law. The club does not condone what happened last night. It would be unacceptable at a first team game and it is unacceptable for the reserves."

United refused to comment on threats by the MEC that they would activate a "civil war" if supporters' views were ignored in any takeover situation.

The group were also responsible for disrupting a race meeting at Hereford earlier this year during Sir Alex Ferguson's feud with Irish racing moguls John Magnier and JP McManus. Two days ago, United director Maurice Watkins had red paint splashed over his car in retribution for a million of his shares being passed on to Glazer.

The supporters believe Glazer does not have sufficient funds to take over the club and would pay off resulting loans by hiking admission prices. They apparently targeted the reserve match to redress the balance after what was perceived as a pro-Glazer interview on MUTV earlier this week.

Glazer has so far refused to confirm he made the initial approach to United last week seeking clarification of a number of issues relating to a possible buy-out.

[Sempuukyaku]

Um, please forgive me as I don't know all of the politics of the Mutiny situation down there in Tampa, but based solely on the article why should the Glazers be the one to blame?

[mutinywxgirl]

Because the Glazers had too many chances to count - to save the Mutiny, in spite of what MSL did during negotiations.

[soccerfan]

from Man U web site , Americans against Glazer, I really wish this guy would go away or make a firm comitment to soccer here in USA first if he wants to be accepted. Florida needs and deserves a team, time is now for Glazer to step up or shut up.

"Glazer has no interest in soccer - he just wants the cash
The man who wants to own Manchester United has no interest in football and sees the club purely as a business opportunity. That is the stinging verdict from American soccer fans, who witnessed the way Malcolm Glazer left his hometown soccer club the Mutiny to die. Glazer is ready to launch a £728million takeover of the Old Trafford giants but has already run into fierce opposition from United fans. And their opposition is well-founded if his treatment of Tampa soccer club the Mutiny is anything to go by. Former American soccer star Mike Connell, who played alongside Rodney Marsh, Frank Worthington and Sam Allardyce in the original Tampa Bay soccer team The Rowdies, saw Glazer's approach first-hand. He said: "Glazer had a chance to help soccer in his own back yard but didn't want to know. He's not one to be bothered about sport, history or tradition."
Geoff Sweet, News of the World

[riverplate]

This thread is really starting to annoy me. None of the articles posted indicate that Malcolm Glazer is an evil individual worthy of hate.

I'll keep it short: Major League Soccer is not a charity and Malcolm Glazer is not Santa Claus. If Phil Anschutz or Lamar Hunt want to throw good money after bad out the window, that's their business. Glazer has decided he wants to make something called a profit out of the sport.

If he had no interest in soccer, he wouldn't be bothering with it. There have got to be easier ways for people like him to make a buck. Quite possibly, he also wants to actually run the club he owns. He'll be able to do that with United, since the EPL isn't being run by the bunch of anti-capitalist geniuses responsible for the operation of America's shining domestic contribution to the world of soccer.

And it's not like Glazer is against a tight ship being run. Glazer has shown he is willing to be involved in a sports league with a strong front office. Nothing happens in the NFL without headquarters approving of it. But the NFL isn't being run by morons and everybody makes a pretty penny.

I find the portion of the initial post about how MLS decided to run the price of the franchise up because good old Malcolm had a real fat wallet to be amusing. What a way to run a business! Yet some of you feel Glazer should have just forked it over. How easy you are with other people's wealth.

Don't you realize word of stunts like that gets around? Why do you think nobody's banging the door down to get into this league? Jorge Vergara bought in ChivasUSA at $10 million, and is also going to have to shell out another $15 million. Why? I hope he's smart enough to have a trick or two up his sleeve dealing with these thieves over the next few years. I'd love to see him get the last laugh.

I know I promised to keep this short, but this kind of nonsense really burns me. Get over it. Nobody owes you people anything.

[soccerfan]

I know I promised to keep this short, but this kind of nonsense really burns me. Get over it. Nobody owes you people anything.


things are not as they seem to apear, do not be fooled by what the papers said,and who said ,what, who you gona belive anyway.

I think your wrong if you think soccer is just a business investment, and so you state that you think he must like soccer, but what proof is there. Was he ever involved in any, ? Tampa has a long history of soccer, was he ever part of it, on any level ? I do not think that MLS asked for more money because he has a fat wallet, i belive MLS only asked for him to a long term commitment, and he said " i help out now for 5 mil, but if i loose $1 i am out of here.". Owner / operators have to fork out each year more money to pay the bills. The owners we have are here for the long haul, and clearly he Glazer is not interested in the long term future of soccer,so who the hell wants him, not us and not the Man U fans. Let him invest in corn.

[mls2atl]

he did try to buy the mutiny for 5 million but then the owners upped the price and negotiations fell through. he did try but it wasnt his fault. if the man can afford to buy man u then let him do it. who knows maybe after he buys man u he will buy into mls. who says you have to buy into mls before the epl? give the guy a break

[soccerfan]

he did try to buy the mutiny for 5 million but then the owners upped the price and negotiations fell through. he did try but it wasnt his fault. if the man can afford to buy man u then let him do it. who knows maybe after he buys man u he will buy into mls. who says you have to buy into mls before the epl? give the guy a break

actualy the FA will conduct an inquiry as to his experience on running a soccer team, and it ZERO


"Malcolm Glazer faces Prem probe
American billionaire Malcolm Glazer will come under intense scrutiny from the FA and FA Premier League if he launches a successful bid to take control of Manchester United. It emerged last night that Glazer, who owns American football team Tampa Bay Buccaneers and has a 19 per cent stake in United, will be expected to prove he is a "fit and proper person" to run a football club. The test was implemented in the summer to protect clubs from falling into the hands of dubious individuals. Existing owners and directors of all 20 Premiership clubs have already undertaken the test. A Premier League source said: "Prospective new owners and directors of clubs have to prove they are fit and proper people to run a club. The appointment of new directors and owners is scrutinised by us and the FA."
Paul Smith and Simon Mullock, Sunday Mirror

[mls2atl]

actualy the FA will conduct an inquiry as to his experience on running a soccer team, and it ZERO


"Malcolm Glazer faces Prem probe
American billionaire Malcolm Glazer will come under intense scrutiny from the FA and FA Premier League if he launches a successful bid to take control of Manchester United. It emerged last night that Glazer, who owns American football team Tampa Bay Buccaneers and has a 19 per cent stake in United, will be expected to prove he is a "fit and proper person" to run a football club. The test was implemented in the summer to protect clubs from falling into the hands of dubious individuals. Existing owners and directors of all 20 Premiership clubs have already undertaken the test. A Premier League source said: "Prospective new owners and directors of clubs have to prove they are fit and proper people to run a club. The appointment of new directors and owners is scrutinised by us and the FA."
Paul Smith and Simon Mullock, Sunday Mirror
http://sports.tbo.com/sports/MGBR77UE40E.html
bid brings memories of mutiny demise
While the Glazers were in negotiations with Major League Soccer during 2001 to buy the Mutiny and keep the club alive, negotiations fell through, and the Mutiny, along with the Miami Fusion, were contracted from the league before the 2002 season.

However, most of the blame for the Mutiny deal falling through must be laid at the feet of Major League Soccer. While the original amount that was required to purchase an MLS team was $5 million, it was documented that when the Glazers were in negotiations to buy the Mutiny from MLS, the asking price was upped by the MLS owners, which stalled the negotiations.


i think he will do fine running man u, he has run the bucs sucessfully

[soccerfan]

http://sports.tbo.com/sports/MGBR77UE40E.html
bid brings memories of mutiny demise
While the Glazers were in negotiations with Major League Soccer during 2001 to buy the Mutiny and keep the club alive, negotiations fell through, and the Mutiny, along with the Miami Fusion, were contracted from the league before the 2002 season.

However, most of the blame for the Mutiny deal falling through must be laid at the feet of Major League Soccer. While the original amount that was required to purchase an MLS team was $5 million, it was documented that when the Glazers were in negotiations to buy the Mutiny from MLS, the asking price was upped by the MLS owners, which stalled the negotiations.


i think he will do fine running man u, he has run the bucs sucessfully


for some reason i belive there is more to the story, its not just as simple as saying they wanted more money, would be nice to know the ReAL story someday. Glazer would have to play a lot more today if he were interested to join MLS, the more i read about him i know he is a sportsman but not a soccer fan. Not sure how the guy makes his money but i see it as a marketing ploy.

[swedcrip34]

for some reason i belive there is more to the story, its not just as simple as saying they wanted more money, would be nice to know the ReAL story someday. Glazer would have to play a lot more today if he were interested to join MLS, the more i read about him i know he is a sportsman but not a soccer fan. Not sure how the guy makes his money but i see it as a marketing ploy.

He's no spring chicken (seriously) and at least one of his sons is a soccer fan.

I wish he'd saved the Mutiny and built a domed SSS but I understand that he's a businessman and respect that he might not want to lose money. MLS is a long haul investment for any profit and probably in its first 10-15 years is something of a charity. I think a good share of NFL owners would like to place MLS teams in their unused stadiums during the summer for relatively cheap buying in costs but they don't want to be part of the single-entity. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable in a single-entity deal. Not saying I'm against single-entity for MLS now or saying anything else would work. Just that I would think twice before investing and 10 years ago wouldn't have considered it.

[SoccerPrime]

"Malcolm Glazer faces Prem probe
American billionaire Malcolm Glazer will come under intense scrutiny from the FA and FA Premier League if he launches a successful bid to take control of Manchester United. It emerged last night that Glazer, who owns American football team Tampa Bay Buccaneers and has a 19 per cent stake in United, will be expected to prove he is a "fit and proper person" to run a football club. The test was implemented in the summer to protect clubs from falling into the hands of dubious individuals. Existing owners and directors of all 20 Premiership clubs have already undertaken the test. A Premier League source said: "Prospective new owners and directors of clubs have to prove they are fit and proper people to run a club. The appointment of new directors and owners is scrutinised by us and the FA."
Paul Smith and Simon Mullock, Sunday Mirror

Glazer need to be fit and proper to own a EPL team? Get real. FA is a joke. All Glazer needs to own ManU is to be rich, just like all the other EPL owners. What else can you get out of that article then the FA doesn't want an American to own ManU?
Bigots.

[Devilish Red]

Glazer need to be fit and proper to own a EPL team? Get real. FA is a joke. All Glazer needs to own ManU is to be rich, just like all the other EPL owners. What else can you get out of that article then the FA doesn't want an American to own ManU?
Bigots.

Well Peter 'Spend, Spend, Spend' Risdale passed the test so it can't be that daunting.

I can see this all falling apart. Glazer simply isn't rich enough to buy Man U. It'll cost $1.3Bn and he just doesn't have it.

[ElJefe]

I think a good share of NFL owners would like to place MLS teams in their unused stadiums during the summer for relatively cheap buying in costs but they don't want to be part of the single-entity. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable in a single-entity deal. Not saying I'm against single-entity for MLS now or saying anything else would work. Just that I would think twice before investing and 10 years ago wouldn't have considered it.
Of all the owners in American professional sports, NFL owners would probably be the ones most comfortable with the single entity.

Which goes a long way in explaining why NFL owners (Lamar Hunt and Robert Kraft) owned more of MLS in the beginning than Phil Anschutz did.

[swedcrip34]

Of all the owners in American professional sports, NFL owners would probably be the ones most comfortable with the single entity.

Which goes a long way in explaining why NFL owners (Lamar Hunt and Robert Kraft) owned more of MLS in the beginning than Phil Anschutz did.

I don't know. There's a big ego thing at play with owning teams. Maybe the bigger issue I was getting at is the financial liability/risk being out of their hands. They own 10% of the league, have 10% of the say, and have to pay 10% of the losses if the other 90% decide to overspend. Takes trust.

[mls2atl]

things fell apart just as predicted....

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=313154&cc=5901

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Man United takeover bid collapses


Malcolm Glazer's bid for Manchester United is dead in the water after major shareholders John Magnier and JP McManus told the American there was no basis for a deal.

The Takeover Panel have been informed that after initial discussions between the two parties, the Irish duo have told Glazer there is no basis for further talks to continue.


It is anticipated the news will be confirmed by Manchester United in a statement to the Stock Exchange tomorrow unless Glazer and his financial advisers JP Morgan can come up with an alternative funding package, which at this stage seems a virtual impossibility.

The news brings a dramatic end to a saga which has rumbled on since October 4, when United confirmed to the Stock Exchange they had received a 'preliminary approach' for the club, which is believed to have come from Glazer, and is bound to be greeted with delirium by Red Devils supporters, who have waged a fierce campaign to prevent the American seizing control.

However, rather than bowing to the pressure of United fans, their past record would suggest Magnier and McManus, who through their Cubic Expression holding company own 28.9% of the Old Trafford club, have reached their conclusion on pure business grounds.

Although the duo would stand to make millions on their investment even at today's closing price of £2.64, it has always been insisted they view United as a long-term proposition and clearly believe the club is now being run more to their satisfaction following the infamous 99 corporate governance questions they posed of the Red Devils board earlier this year.

Ironically, that intervention made Magnier and McManus public enemy number one among the United fans, who believed their intervention was solely motivated by a desire to increase the pressure on Sir Alex Ferguson in his ownership dispute over record-breaking stallion Rock of Gibraltar.

While that row did end favourably for Magnier, the effect of the club issues has resulted in chief executive David Gill presiding over an organisation which is now leading the way in terms of transfer transparency, adopting a refreshing openness, particularly over payments to agents, the rest of the game would do well to follow.

The Cubic Expression duo certainly will not view themselves as saviours of the Old Trafford outfit and for as long as they retain their current shareholding they can exercise massive power even though they do not have a place on the United board.

However, they have succeeded in delivering a metaphorical bloody nose to Glazer, whose attempts to take control of United have bordered on the shambolic.

The American owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL franchise forced United into an Offer Period in March this year by refusing to clarify whether he intended to launch a takeover bid.

Having got out of that situation, it now appears Glazer attempted to gain outright control without first getting any indication as to whether Cubic would be interested in doing a deal.

Even his preliminary approach forced United to demand clarification, so uncertain were they over some of the 'significant clauses' contained within it.

It was also suggested Glazer would have needed to borrow heavily to fund the deal, giving more power to the fans' groups, who claimed ticket prices would have to be increased massively just to fund the interest payments.

Protests were launched immediately after news of the attempted takeover was released and United director Maurice Watkins had his car vandalised in retribution for the sale of a million shares which ended up as part of Glazer's current 19.1% stake.

Seven days ago, a reserve team game at Altrincham was halted by a pitch invasion, during which members of the `Manchester Education Committee' burned US flags.

Glazer's London-based PR firm Brunswick has been besieged by hoax calls and pizza and skip deliveries over the past seven days, while members of the influential Shareholders United group are due to demonstrate outside the Stock Exchange tomorrow afternoon.

What is not yet known as he licks his wounds in Florida is what Glazer intends to do now.

Under Stock Market rules, he will be barred from launching another bid for a further six months, by which time Shareholders United hope to have taken their combined stake in the club over the 10% threshold which would make any takeover bid less appealing.

[mls2atl]

and the fans are happy

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=313163&cc=5901

Thursday, October 14, 2004

United fans 'relieved'


Manchester United fans tonight said they were relieved as Malcolm Glazer's bid for the club looked doomed to fail.
It is believed that major shareholders John Magnier and JP McManus told the American that there was no basis for a deal.


The news brings a dramatic end to a saga which has rumbled on since October 4 when United confirmed to the Stock Exchange that they had received a 'preliminary approach' for the club, which is believed to have come from Mr Glazer.

Fans welcomed the news tonight.

Mark Longden, of the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association, said: 'Obviously we are delighted that the immediate threat has gone away but this is going to keep rearing its head as long as the club is a PLC.

'I never thought Glazer was serious anyway, but we just cannot lie down and hope that he goes away. We have to fight to make sure he does.

'But the worrying thing is that this keeps cropping up once every couple of months, and that leads to instability.

'Tonight there is a feeling of resigned relief. We have been though it so many times and we will again.

'People are getting fed up with take-over bids distracting from football matters and what happens on the pitch.'

Mr Longden said that United fans who owned shares needed to join together so that any future take-over bids could be blocked.

United fan Andy Roberts said: 'It's good news for the club that Glazer does not look like he will take control, and hopefully it will send out a clear message to others that Manchester United is not for sale.

'The supporters have made it perfectly clear in the last few days that we do not want businessmen who are only interested in making a profit out of us taking control of the club.'

[mutinywxgirl]

And one more....... http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3082000


Glazer bid set for failure

Manchester United share prices have fallen dramatically amid rumours that a deal between Malcolm Glazer and major shareholders John Magnier and JP McManus has collapsed.

At one stage, United's share price dipped by more than 5% and while the loss was only 3% by mid-afternoon, the move was enough to suggest the City believes the story to be true.
Sources close to both parties as well as United themselves were remaining tight-lipped, though if the speculation proved to be accurate, it is thought a statement of some description would have to be made to the Stock Exchange as the club is currently in an Offer Period.

Malcolm Glazer's efforts to purchase a controlling interest in Manchester United have been rebuffed both inside and outside the boardroom.

It would almost certainly mean the end of Glazer's attempts to launch a takeover bid as without the 29% stake of Magnier and McManus, the American owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL franchise would have no chance of completing the kind of buy-out required to appease the banks who were responsible for lending him the cash.

The supporters who have so actively attempted to deter Glazer's involvement were waiting anxiously for further details just hours before a key meeting designed to formulate a battle plan for the weeks ahead.

Irate fans have already targeted long-serving Old Trafford director Maurice Watkins, who had his car vandalised in retaliation for selling a million shares which ended up in Glazer's hands. And last Thursday's reserve team encounter with Birmingham was disrupted by a pitch invasion conducted by the 'Manchester Education Committee'.

Brunswick, the London-based PR company appointed by Glazer to look after his interests, has been besieged by hoax calls involving mass pizza and skip deliveries, while representatives of Shareholders United were due to hold a demonstration outside the Stock Exchange on Friday.

Thursday's speculation comes amid SU's claims that they had found a 'silver bullet' that could kill off Glazer's hopes of taking United over anyway.

Leading City institutions sympathetic to SU's position have informed the organisation that Glazer may face insurmountable problems in raising the finance required to complete a purchase unless he can buy the club outright. And that scenario is an impossibility as long as SU can retain a 5% stake in the club.

All this would become immaterial if Magnier and McManus refuse to sell their stake to Glazer, which would leave United's fans to celebrate another famous victory following their successful efforts in blocking BSkyB's attempted takeover in 1999.