Today's NYT editorial

[YankeeHoo]

I wanted to make sure y'all saw this.. rather poorly written piece by the new York Times, seems to completely miss the point

"The Yanks Are Coming



Published: May 23, 2005
You would think from the way Manchester United soccer fans are carrying on about the purchase of their team by Malcolm Glazer that the royal crown jewels were on their way to Arizona to join the London Bridge. What primarily seems to annoy the Red Devils crowd is that (1.) Mr. Glazer is an American, (2.) Americans don't know beans about soccer, and (3.) he is a tycoon wringing money out of a British legend. On the face of it, the fans are not far off: Mr. Glazer is an American, Americans don't by and large know beans about soccer, and Mr. Glazer does hope to make money on Manchester.

So what? For all the legend and lore that encrust Manchester United, the days when tough local lads went out on Sunday and played for the glory of factory and city are gone. Sports teams are business, and increasingly global, and the globalized playing field has become level. ManU has more fans in Asia than in Manchester; its current roster includes all sorts of foreigners, like an American goalkeeper. And look what foreign owners can do: Chelsea, owned by the Russian oil tycoon Roman Abramovich, just won its first English title in 50 years.

Manchester fans argue that Mr. Abramovich is different - he actually goes to every Chelsea game. True, Mr. Glazer is not known to care much for sports. But after he bought the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, they went from being the losingest team to playing in a Super Bowl. And Mr. Glazer's son Joel, who will be running ManU, insists that he is "avid" about soccer.

It's obviously in Mr. Glazer's interest to remember that sports involve fans and winning. So this shouldn't be treated like another Battle of Britain. Besides, Arizona's a lot nicer than Manchester in winter."

[Sapphire]

Wonder what space cadet wrote that?? So the argument is "Americans don't know sh!t about soccer . . . including the writer of this editorial." How enlightening.

[TomEaton]

If it completely misses the point, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the point is.

[Motterman]

I hate articles like this. It illegitamizes our whole opposition to the takeover as being nothing more than xenophobia.


It's insulting to us, and plays right into that bastard's hands at the same time.....

I swear, we should just change our forum tagline to "It's the debt, stupid."

Nice and bumpersticker-worthy, for those people with less intellect than a mushroom.

[johno]

I second the motion to change the forum tagline to "its the debt stupid"

[Achtung]

Oh there will be a nice little reply awaiting that fellow in his e-mail inbox tomorrow morning.

[Coach_McGuirk]

So do I. It's infinitely more suitable than the one you currently have... :D

[jayro75]

Manchester fans argue that Mr. Abramovich is different - he actually goes to every Chelsea game. True, Mr. Glazer is not known to care much for sports. But after he bought the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, they went from being the losingest team to playing in a Super Bowl. And Mr. Glazer's son Joel, who will be running ManU, insists that he is "avid" about soccer.



This whole paragraph is my favorite especially the part about his son being avid about soccer because he said so....I bet he can count the amount of matches he's watched on 1 finger....

This writer is an ignorant a$$ but what do you expect.....

[listen_up_fergie]

What' the matter with journalists today? Since when did opinion without research become fashionable?

[FIFARay007]

I second the motion to change the forum tagline to "its the debt stupid"

I third the motion

[Achtung]

So do I. It's infinitely more suitable than the one you currently have... :D

Oh I don't know, Coach. If you can keep yours, we might as well pick:
"Have you ever won the treble have you ********???" ;)

[Motterman]

Oh I don't know, Coach. If you can keep yours, we might as well pick:
"Have you ever won the treble have you ********???" ;)Oh he'd love that.

We could do it all...

"TREBLE TREBLE TREBLE, '99 '99 '99, Ruud, Keane, and Ronaldo!"

They'll overload.

[NYCgeezer]

I really, really, really do NOT want to think about Glazer every time I come on this board...

[NYCgeezer]

I dont want to think about Glazer every time I log on to this board.

But I always welcome Wenger bashing:

"With a pocket full of sweets and a cheeky smile, Arsene Wenger is a ********in' pedophile."

[Achtung]

My letter in response to the editor:

The assumption that Manchester United fans oppose Malcolm Glazer's bid
simply because, as you claim, "Americans don't know beans about soccer,"
is completely missing the point.

The issue isn't Mr. Glazer's nationality--its the massive debt burden he
is bringing to the team, anywhere between $485 million and $1.1 billion
depending on interest payments. For a hugely-successful and profitable
team like Manchester United, that kind of financial predicament is
unacceptable.

Those thinking that Mr. Glazer's success with the Buccaneers means that
he can find the same success with Manchester United don't understand
England lacks entities like revenue sharing and salary caps that allowed
him to succeed in the NFL.

Though if Mr. Glazer can't come close to replicating Manchester United's
success over the past fifteen years, the fans will give him far more
headaches than the team's debt.

Yeah they want you to keep it under 150 words, so there you go. Shouldn't take too long for anyone else who wants to contribute.

[johno]

I'd rep if i could, but i got to spread.

[ilv2]

I'd rep if i could, but i got to spread.

repped for ya.

sending in a comment of my own.

[ilv2]

sent in a comment of my own to the Public Editor of the nytimes. (public@nytimes.com), who apparently oversees reporting practices and ethics:

"The editorial "The Yanks are coming" (05/23/05) is a real piece of work - it displays an utter and completely unjournalistic lack of knowledge regarding the issue. Did the author even bother to read up thorougly on the issue? Did he even try educate himself on what the United supporters are saying and why they are so against Malcolm Glazer's takeover? Evidently not, and I don't say this as a trite expression of disagreement. There is absolutely no conceivable way a semi-informed individual could put out such a vacuous, presumptuous, and frankly stupid article. The author lists off three reasons that "primarily annoy the Red Devils crowd," which construct essentially a American-Brtish conflict. This fundamental assumption which the author bases his argument on is completely incorrect. The problem is the primary reason for the Reds' opposition is not that, not even close. A quick look at supporter websites reveals that the opposition focuses on financial opposition to a hostile and debt-ridden business takeover. For the New York Times to properly fulfill their function as a news site, where people go to find truthful and honest views, it must stop encouraging such poorly researched and idiotic pieces such as "The Yanks are coming."

[YankeeHoo]

here was my reply... i tried to remember that the times likes the use of big words...

I am shocked the the Times would ignorantly accept the xenophobic idea that anti-Americanism is fueling Malcolm Glazer's takeover of Manchester United (editorial: The Yanks are coming, 5/23/05). Such a simplistic line of reasoning is insulting to the millions of soccer fans in England who are watching Glazer saddle their club with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, and befuddling to Tampa Bay residents and football fans who, thanks to Glazer, have lost their Major League Soccer franchise, endured a tax hike after Glazer blackmailed the city for a new stadium, and suffered through a 12-20 record over the last 2 seasons. With the calls for prudence regarding the costs of the potential West Side stadium, it is shocking to see the editorial board offer such a blase attitude regarding Glazer's financially crippling maneuver.

[jatm516]

How can his son run a soccer team? He doesn't even know "avid" is an adjective rather than a verb.

Maybe he's trying out British English, and I'm just not familiar with the British usage.