Excellent Slate article on ManU & Glazer

[puddleduck]

I don't read this forum and I don't particularly care about Man United one way or the other but I though you lot might enjoy this article:Slate Magazine on Glazer and Man U (http://www.slate.com/id/2110765/)

Cheers!

[Achtung]

Thanks, puddleduck. Makes a lot of the basic points clear to people who aren't too familiar with the situation regarding the club and Glazer.

[Mac_Howard]

I came acorss an article this morning about Oracle's Larry Ellison trying to by the 49'ers. To me, Ellison's response reveals precisely why we don't want Glazer:

Ellison vented his frustration over a failed bid to buy the San Francisco 49ers franchise on Wednesday during his speech at his company's annual convention. The football team's owners, John and Denise York, recently rejected Ellison's buyout offer.

"Unfortunately, it's not a publicly held company, so you can't vote (the Yorks) out of there," Ellison said in response to a question about the team during the speech.

Ellison's attitude reminds me of my 9 year old daughter who believes that nothing should oppose her desires. In Ellison's case, if the owner doesn't want to sell, then there ought to be a mechanism whereby he can push him aside - nothing, including ownership, should stand in the way of his getting what he wants.

Who wants an owner that is so wrapped up in himself that no one else matters? It is this sort of individual (the modern businessman?), which describes Glazer to a tee, that is NEVER wanted at OT.

[QuakeAttack]

I came acorss an article this morning about Oracle's Larry Ellison trying to by the 49'ers. To me, Ellison's response reveals precisely why we don't want Glazer:



Ellison's attitude reminds me of my 9 year old daughter who believes that nothing should oppose her desires. In Ellison's case, if the owner doesn't want to sell, then there ought to be a mechanism whereby he can push him aside - nothing, including ownership, should stand in the way of his getting what he wants.

Who wants an owner that is so wrapped up in himself that no one else matters? It is this sort of individual (the modern businessman?), which describes Glazer to a tee, that is NEVER wanted at OT.
If you knew anything about the current owners of the 49ers, you would be extremlly happy if anyone would push them out. Glazer including...

I don't know the complete history of Manu, but this happens when you are a publically traded company. Just happens to be a sport franchise. I'm sure the British are much more proper in taking over companies. Right!

[KenC]

I came acorss an article this morning about Oracle's Larry Ellison trying to by the 49'ers. To me, Ellison's response reveals precisely why we don't want Glazer:

Ellison's attitude reminds me of my 9 year old daughter who believes that nothing should oppose her desires. In Ellison's case, if the owner doesn't want to sell, then there ought to be a mechanism whereby he can push him aside - nothing, including ownership, should stand in the way of his getting what he wants.

Who wants an owner that is so wrapped up in himself that no one else matters? It is this sort of individual (the modern businessman?), which describes Glazer to a tee, that is NEVER wanted at OT.
Uhm, Ellison and Glazer are not the same entity, and the context is completely different between the 49ers and ManU. In the 49ers saga, the public wants Ellison to buy out the existing owners, but the existing owners are the pigheaded ones, as portrayed by the media. Ellison is the local white night as portrayed by the media, who wants to get rid of the existing owner carpetbaggers.

As for Glazer and ManU, the fact is ManU made it a public company, not Glazer. Glazer did not put ManU in play, it's the current directorship that has done so. Why blame Glazer for playing by the rules. If you don't want him to buy, don't sell your shares to him. How more democratic can it get?

As for the Slate article, let's recall that the NFL is probably the economic model for modern sports, not the Premiership. In the NFL, communities can own franchises like Green Bay, and thrive. There aren't any NFL franchises saddled with large amounts of debt that you see in the Premiership. Not a one. It would not hurt to have someone with a successful sports franchise experience in the Premiership.

It's absolutely ironic that the biggest financial travesty in the sport, that is Abramovich's takeover of Chelsea, takes place with nary a peep. His subsidizing of the team makes for an uncompetitive marketplace. Since he is not operating under rational fiscal restraint, he raises the cost of transfers for teams that do operate under rational fiscal restraint like ManU. Where's the outrage? This is like Ferrari outspending their counterparts into bankruptcy in F1. Hardly healthy, hardly rational, and a formula for disaster with haves and have-nots.

I don't particularly care for Glazer one way or the other, but the level of animosity towards his approach is irrational. Have the shareholders really looked at how well the team is currently being run? With millions in underhanded agent payments, involving SAF's son? Where's the financial transparency? Shareholders think this is the way to run the company?

I'm just baffled at the response of shareholders. Glazer for all they know could be their best ally, but hey, let's not give him a chance. Let's just assume we know all we want to know, and burn him in effigy, because all rich b*stards are the same, Murdoch, Cubic, and Glazer. <much sarcasm>

[Motterman]

I don't particularly care for Glazer one way or the other, but the level of animosity towards his approach is irrational. Have the shareholders really looked at how well the team is currently being run? With millions in underhanded agent payments, involving SAF's son? Where's the financial transparency? Shareholders think this is the way to run the company?

I'm just baffled at the response of shareholders. Glazer for all they know could be their best ally, but hey, let's not give him a chance. Let's just assume we know all we want to know, and burn him in effigy, because all rich b*stards are the same, Murdoch, Cubic, and Glazer. <much sarcasm>
That's truly a remarkable, albeit uninformed, opinion you got there.

[johno]

As for the Slate article, let's recall that the NFL is probably the economic model for modern sports, not the Premiership. In the NFL, communities can own franchises like Green Bay, and thrive. There aren't any NFL franchises saddled with large amounts of debt that you see in the Premiership. Not a one. It would not hurt to have someone with a successful sports franchise experience in the Premiership.


Firstly, any league that has 5 officials to cover a game being played over 100 yards is not the model modern sports... perhaps modern sports in America, but thank god not modern sports for the world. The nonsense that goes on in the NFL is not wanted in football thank you very much - we don't mind that some clubs lose money in great quantities - its not a bloody business - its a sport. I'm not sure how true it is, but I would like to think that if Manchester United was a pub team where Keano and Giggs had to pay for their own shirts they would play with the same passion and desire as they play with now.

Secondly - if you want to look at an example of a successful sports franchise, look no further than Manchester United, the biggest club and most well known team in the world - if anything the NFL should be taking pointers from us.

Of course it does come down to brass tacks... yes every club needs money, but it does not need money to simply fatten the pockets of owners: it needs money so that it can buy good players, have a good ground and uniforms and pay wages so that it can keep going. Quite frankly that's all the shareholders (most of them) are interested in - football. The only reason we don't want Glazer in charge is not because he will take alot of money, or that we don't want to be run like a business, its that we don't want it to become more of a business than it is a football club and Glazer like he has in the past will get his priorities wrong (I suppose right if u are a businessman) and the club, its football, not its finances will suffer.

[Motterman]

http://img9.exs.cx/img9/1756/glazermao2a.jpg

[SankaCofie]

That's truly a remarkable, albeit uninformed, opinion you got there.

what exaclty about his opinion is uninformed?

not too busy to disagree but too busy to explain?

[Mac_Howard]

Uhm, Ellison and Glazer are not the same entity, and the context is completely different between the 49ers and ManU. In the 49ers saga, the public wants Ellison to buy out the existing owners, but the existing owners are the pigheaded ones, as portrayed by the media. Ellison is the local white night as portrayed by the media, who wants to get rid of the existing owner carpetbaggers.

As for Glazer and ManU, the fact is ManU made it a public company, not Glazer. Glazer did not put ManU in play, it's the current directorship that has done so. Why blame Glazer for playing by the rules. If you don't want him to buy, don't sell your shares to him. How more democratic can it get?

As for the Slate article, let's recall that the NFL is probably the economic model for modern sports, not the Premiership. In the NFL, communities can own franchises like Green Bay, and thrive. There aren't any NFL franchises saddled with large amounts of debt that you see in the Premiership. Not a one. It would not hurt to have someone with a successful sports franchise experience in the Premiership.

It's absolutely ironic that the biggest financial travesty in the sport, that is Abramovich's takeover of Chelsea, takes place with nary a peep. His subsidizing of the team makes for an uncompetitive marketplace. Since he is not operating under rational fiscal restraint, he raises the cost of transfers for teams that do operate under rational fiscal restraint like ManU. Where's the outrage? This is like Ferrari outspending their counterparts into bankruptcy in F1. Hardly healthy, hardly rational, and a formula for disaster with haves and have-nots.

I don't particularly care for Glazer one way or the other, but the level of animosity towards his approach is irrational. Have the shareholders really looked at how well the team is currently being run? With millions in underhanded agent payments, involving SAF's son? Where's the financial transparency? Shareholders think this is the way to run the company?

I'm just baffled at the response of shareholders. Glazer for all they know could be their best ally, but hey, let's not give him a chance. Let's just assume we know all we want to know, and burn him in effigy, because all rich b*stards are the same, Murdoch, Cubic, and Glazer. <much sarcasm>


I don't think I've read so much garbage about this subject before. Stop defending America and look at the subject matter.

The point is about Ellison and his childish petulence when his wishes are frustrated. It has nothing to do with America/Britain or 49ers/Man Utd or NFL/Premiership. It's about the mentality of that section of the business community that feels that everything should be for sale. The owner doesn't want to sell? Well there should be some way of pushing him out of the way so that I can get on and do what I want to do.

Glazer understands nothing about the culture of British soccer. The club and the fans are one and the same. Buy the club and lose the fans and you've bought a turkey. Any club, even Utd, can fail on the pitch and when that happens only the loyalty of fans will save the club from financial disaster following.

This is a cliche but it rings very true - the likes of Ellison and Glazer know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[Motterman]

what exaclty about his opinion is uninformed?

not too busy to disagree but too busy to explain?
Look no further than Leeds who were on the cusp of success in Europe a mear 3 years ago and look how massive debts have crushed them. They were one of our greatest rivals and now look at them... Glazer's bid is front loaded with debt from the start and nothing good could come from taking on that debt, NOTHING.

It stuns me how people look at the more colorful forms of protest and pronounce them all as irrational. Well, when the concept of why we all resist the takeover is so easy to see (and you'd think understand), there's little other choice than coming up with over the top stunts to get the attention from the press needed to get our message out. We can't splash thousands of dollars around or call press conferences all the time whenever we want to get our opinions heard. We're up against millionaires here after all, it's bound to get a little dirty.

Things are never perfect, but letting Glazer have a crack at running our club into the ground isn't the answer to any of the problems mentioned above....

[SankaCofie]

Lots of stuff.

Ok, thank you!

[Mac_Howard]

Ok, thank you!

Well, I don't have the couple of hours necessary to address all the flaws in KenC's post but I'll take a shot at one of them - the idea that Utd fans are "irrational" to oppose Glazer's takeover:

What is irrational about the fans of the most financially successful soccer club in the world not wanting to take on a debt equal to 20 years' profits without receiving a single cent of the loan?

What is irrational about these fans, whose first priority is the continuing success of the team on the field of play, not wanting an owner whose only interest is the money he can take out of the club?

What is irrational in these fans opposition to an owner who will deliberately damage the club by effectively sacking three competent board members for no other reason than a dummy spit?

What is irrational in not wanting an owner who, should playing fortunes turn down, is so tangled up in debt that the assets of the club (ie players) will be the first line of debt servicing?

What is irrational in not wanting an owner who has shown such arrogant disregard for these fans that he has made no attempt whatsoever to explain what advantages he will bring?

What irrationality is there in not wanting an owner who takes on a PR firm who are so parochial that they don't know the difference between Tampa Bay in the NFL and Utd in the Premiership. Utd is a franchise? Utd needs to win trophies?

So there we have seven "rationalities" for not wanting Glazer. Do we have a single one in favour? We don't know because Glazer has made no attempt to address the concerns of the fans. Instead he has antagonised them at every turn.

[Achtung]

Ok, thank you!

You posted in the other thread here (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3572730#post3572730) and received answers of why we are opposed to Glazer. Now you ask again. Do you bother to read anything in here or do you just post without looking at the relevant threads?

[SankaCofie]

no, I know why you guys opposed Glazer... I'm just irked when people make comments in here and then don't bother to explain themselves at all, and wanted to know why motterman thought KenC's opinion was "uninformed".

personally I am no longer of the opinion that glazer would do any good for ManU.

[Mac_Howard]

In the end it's really very simple:

1) we don't need the debt and its consequences

2) we don't need an owner who ignores the club's best interest

[prk166]

no, I know why you guys opposed Glazer... I'm just irked when people make comments in here and then don't bother to explain themselves at all, and wanted to know why motterman thought KenC's opinion was "uninformed".

personally I am no longer of the opinion that glazer would do any good for ManU.

I don't mind people not not-liking or even liking Glazer's takeover. I'm not a fan of it but they're entitled to their own view of things. But when they make unproven, blanket comments about things like the ManU board overlooking under the table payments (ie flavor of the day; a decade or two ago replace 'shady transfer payments' with 'bung') I question the motivation of their posting. Are they simply trying to go for a wind up or interested in discussing the issues at hand?

[Kaiser]

I came acorss an article this morning about Oracle's Larry Ellison trying to by the 49'ers. To me, Ellison's response reveals precisely why we don't want Glazer:



Ellison's attitude reminds me of my 9 year old daughter who believes that nothing should oppose her desires. In Ellison's case, if the owner doesn't want to sell, then there ought to be a mechanism whereby he can push him aside - nothing, including ownership, should stand in the way of his getting what he wants.

Who wants an owner that is so wrapped up in himself that no one else matters? It is this sort of individual (the modern businessman?), which describes Glazer to a tee, that is NEVER wanted at OT.
This is a bad analogy. I don't think your views on Ellison are correct. And if Ellison is a 9ers fan then yes you would want to remove the Yorks by any means possible, they ruined the franchise. I just think the Brits and Man U fans can't tolerate the thought of a yank owning the EPL's most storied franchise. It would be like a Frenchman buying the YANKEES. I just wish Glaser would buy a couple two, tree MLS franchises and build them sss.

[Mac_Howard]

Whether the 49ers will be better off with Ellison or not is irrelevant. My point is that both Ellison and Glazer have the spoilt brat mentality that "if I want to buy something, nothing should stop me, including an owner that doesn't want to sell".

I'm sure there are Brits who object to Glazer because he's American. But you don't have to go there to oppose him - he doesn't have the money and he doesn't have the "club first" attitude that fans want. That adds up to a rational objection to him.