PDA

View Full Version : SU Letter to the NFL


Pages : [1] 2

Motterman
24 May 2005, 02:21 PM
Please find attached the full text of a formal submission sent today by

Shareholders United to NFL Commissioner Tagliabue concerning the

conflict between Manchester United's current and future involvement in

gaming and gambling and Mr Malcolm Glazer's simultaneous ownership of an

NFL franchise.

For any further information or on-the-record statements regarding this

letter please contact our official US representative JD Deitch.

Mr Deitch can be reached on +1 571 278 8332. He will be available for

media comment from 1pm ET today (Tuesday, 5/24/05)

May 24, 2005

Mr Paul Tagliabue

Commissioner of the National Football League

National Football League

280 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017



*RE: **Malcolm** **Glazer**, the **Tampa** **Bay** Buccaneers and

**Manchester** United*

Dear Commissioner Tagliabue,

I am writing to you as the official US representative for, and on behalf

of, Shareholders United, a not-for-profit organization that represents

more than 30,000 fans and shareholders of the English F.A. Premier

League team Manchester United Football Club (MUFC). Many of our

organization’s members, myself included, are US citizens.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr Malcolm Glazer, owner of the NFL’s Tampa

Bay Buccaneers franchise, has assumed majority control of Manchester

United PLC (MUPLC), the holding company for MUFC. We, the members of

Shareholders United (and more expansively, the worldwide fans of MUFC)

presently hold a significant equity stake in MUPLC and are committed to

the permanent ownership of our team by its devoted fans in a manner

similar to which the Green Bay Packers operate.

We have noted that the Finance Committee of the National Football League

has announced plans to examine Mr Glazer’s acquisition (through his Red

Football Ltd vehicle) of MUPLC. In particular, we understand they are

reviewing the NFL’s franchise ownership regulations to determine whether

any conflict with those regulations arises as a result of Glazer’s

acquisition.

We would first like to indicate our willingness to assist this

examination in any way that we can. We have detailed independent records

on the business and financial structure of MUPLC and have also tracked

the progress of Mr Glazer’s increasing involvement with the company

during the last two years. Much of this information may well be of use

during the Finance Committee’s deliberations, and we would be happy to

supply it. We also have democratically elected officers with legal and

financial expertise who would be willing to appear before the Committee

as witnesses.

However, I wish at this time to bring to your attention a particular

area of concern on our part over Mr Glazer’s acquisition which would

appear to fall within the purview of the committee’s review and/or NFL

regulations.**

* *

Our understanding of NFL regulations is that they prohibit NFL franchise

owners from any commercial or promotional activities in gaming or

gambling, or association with organizations that operate in these

fields. There are four areas of concern here.

*1. Gambling at Old Trafford*

MUPLC has a long-standing commercial relationship with Ladbrokes, the

bookmaking subsidiary of Hilton Group plc. Ladbrokes is indeed one of

MUFC’s premier corporate sponsors. One of the most visible

manifestations of this relationship is that Ladbrokes operates

bookmaking stalls in most of the concession areas at the Old Trafford

stadium owned by MUPLC. While UK law does set age restrictions on

betting, these stalls are nonetheless in areas of the stadium frequented

by supporters of all ages.

*2. Online gambling and **Manchester** United*

The extent of MUPLC’s relationship with Ladbrokes also extends to MUFC’s

Internet site – www.manutd.com (http://www.manutd.com/) <http://www.manutd.com/>. Indeed in the

run up to the recent F.A. Cup Final, the official Manchester United

website was offering a ‘splash’ introduction page offering visitors the

chance to bet on the game via Ladbrokes. All users, /including

children/, needed to click through this wagering offer page in order to

access the main content.

*3. The FA Premier League, BSkyB and SkyBet*

As part of its broadcasting rights agreement with British Sky

Broadcasting (BSkyB), the FA Premier League (of which Manchester United

is a member) allows and indirectly benefits from an interactive

on-screen digital television betting service known as SkyBet. This has a

potentially far greater reach that Manchester United’s agreements with

Ladbrokes as it involves the posting of odds during live transmissions

of sporting events and offers the ability to place a bet at the push of

a button via a user’s remote control handset. SkyBet has the potential

to reach in excess of three million TV viewers in the UK.

Furthermore, we note that SkyBet is a subsidiary of BSkyB, meaning that

the largest contributor to MUPLC’s income is, in effect, a bookmaker.

*4. **Manchester** United **PLC** and **Las Vegas** Sands*

Earlier this year, Manchester United entered into an agreement with the

US gambling operation Las Vegas Sands to bid to build a ‘super casino’

adjacent to the Old Trafford stadium. This bid is unlikely to succeed –

the nearby town of Blackpool is considered favorite for the only

franchise being made available at this time by the UK government – but

does appear to signal the two companies’ intentions as more such

franchises are made available in the future.

Taken together, these examples demonstrate that MUPLC has more than just

a passive relationship with gambling and gaming. It is and has been very

active in this regard and has plans to become much more active in the

future. As such, it is our view that these arrangements clearly conflict

with Mr Glazer’s position as an NFL franchise owner.

Similarly, we note the NFL’s long-standing concern over the exposure of

minors to gambling connected to sport and would argue that at least

three of these examples clearly represent such exposure.

I hope that this information is of use to you. If you require any

further information on any of them or indeed any other aspect of MUPLC’s

finances, Shareholders United has conducted extensive research in this

area and, as noted above, would be happy to supply you with our findings.

I should finally note that Shareholders United is today releasing the

contents of this letter to its members, sister organizations in the ‘Not

For Sale’ campaign and the media.

Yours sincerely,

J.D. Deitch

US Representative

Shareholders United

kerpow
24 May 2005, 05:50 PM
ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2067641

johno
24 May 2005, 07:23 PM
That's very underhanded.... I love it... I hope it works out...

Kawaiius
24 May 2005, 08:43 PM
So what does all this mean exactly?

Dkrift
24 May 2005, 09:05 PM
So what does all this mean exactly?

Truthfully, I don't think it means squat.

billyho96
24 May 2005, 09:11 PM
That's very underhanded.....

At least you see it for what it is.

Cannon
24 May 2005, 09:22 PM
That's very underhanded.... I love it... I hope it works out...

Seems like a nice tactic to me. Better than useless marches and burning season tickets.

One problem. Can't Glazer just cut ties with Ladbrokes and end the casino bid? Sure there is the relationship via the onscreen betting but I think the NFL will see that as pretty distant since its part of the television deal with the entire league (if I understand your letter). This would further drop your income and let Glazer keep ManU and the Bucs.

jatm516
24 May 2005, 09:40 PM
True, to me it sounds like it's going to come back to bite you in the ass. One of the biggest complaints for weeks has been the fear that Glazer would sever those broadcasting rights with the rest of the league and go solo. The letter itself says that BSkyB is ManU's biggest contributor. I think the Glazer thing is a done deal and putting this out there to the NFL is not going to affect Glazer's purchase. It will just affect their income opportunities as he severs these ties with the Sands and BSkyB to appease those concerned.

Achtung
25 May 2005, 01:25 AM
ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2067641

"I asked him how much time he's going to spend over there, and he said, 'Not too much,' " [Tennessee Titans owner Bud] Adams said.

When it was pointed out that Glazer's takeover has met with hostility among United fans in England, Adams said: "That's why maybe he's not going to go over there very much."

********er knows he is hated and still tries to pull this off. I just can't imagine this kind of scenario occuring in the US, at least for a sports team.



Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones tried to reassure United's fans.

"While I understand the emotion that is involved right now, if they're as outstanding as owners in soccer as they are in the league, the fans are going to be pleased," Jones said of the Glazer family.

Wrong, Jerry. If the team only wins one championship in ten seasons, the fans will most certainly not be pleased. But then I'm talking to the clueless moron who fired the architect of his Super Bowl-winning teams. How's that working out for ya, Jonesy?

house18
25 May 2005, 02:40 AM
As much as I don't like Glazer taking over this is just some crybaby tactic. Very "I'm going to tell your mom" Childish. very childish.

DC_Gunner
25 May 2005, 02:52 AM
Whatever you have to say about it as a tactic, Motterman seems to be correct. If the NFL rules do indeed state that stuff, this seems to represent a fairly clear violation.

antifan
25 May 2005, 03:47 AM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with SU fowarding this letter. In fact the only thing wrong would be if the NFL and Glazer didn't have a plan to deal with these conflicts already. It does make me wonder if the more likely outcome is Glazer selling the Buccaneers rather then cutting United's ties to gambling.

Motterman
25 May 2005, 08:41 AM
And if Glazer is forced to sell the Bucs, hopefully that money can help repay the debt. All the better for United.

Motterman
25 May 2005, 08:44 AM
As much as I don't like Glazer taking over this is just some crybaby tactic. Very "I'm going to tell your mom" Childish. very childish.

You know, you should probably do some history searching on just how instrumental SU was in getting the Murdoch bid thrown out. That was equally as "childish" but it bloody well worked. :mad:

house18
25 May 2005, 08:52 AM
You know, you should probably do some history searching on just how instrumental SU was in getting the Murdoch bid thrown out. That was equally as "childish" but it bloody well worked. :mad:


So this fine organization is proud to have to resort to being a "tattletale" to get anything done? Wow, sounds great.

Motterman
25 May 2005, 08:57 AM
So this fine organization is proud to have to resort to being a "tattletale" to get anything done? Wow, sounds great.

Right, and what have you done to help fight Glazer then?


:rolleyes:

billyho96
25 May 2005, 09:13 AM
From today's USA Today

"League spokesman Greg Aiello said Glazer's acquisition did not violate the NFL's cross-ownership rules and that there was no problem related to the debt Glazer is incurring.

But the league, known to be skittish about any connection to gambling, wants to know more about a proposed resort and casino that would be built near Manchester United's Old Trafford stadium as a joint venture between the club and Las Vegas Sands Corp.

"The only potential issue concerns that reported Man U joint venture with the Las Vegas casino, what that means, and does it have any implications regarding our policies," Aiello said."


Is that not the one point in the letter from SU, that they mentioned was extremely unlikely?

Vermont Red
25 May 2005, 09:14 AM
Doesn't thinking less of a person or group because they "tattle" end once a person turns twelve or so? What's next, criticizing a member of SU because they picked their nose?

It is the responsibility of any interested party to ensure that all relevant facts are disclosed when an important issue is begin discussed or an important decision is being made. In addition, is there any reason to believe that the NFL owners did not have access to this public information from any other source except SU?

Coach_McGuirk
25 May 2005, 09:21 AM
I'm pretty sure Glazer and his lawyers already had a plan to work around the gambling issue mapped out. He didn't get where he is today because he's dumb.

surfcam
25 May 2005, 09:23 AM
From an AP story I saw this morning about the NFL owners meeting. Thought you lot might be interested.

"Also Tuesday, the league's finance committee asked Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer to explain Manchester United's relationship with a Las Vegas casino. Glazer recently succeeded in a $1.47 billion takeover of the soccer club, which is involved in a proposed venture with Las Vegas Sands Corp. that would build a resort and casino near United's Old Trafford stadium.

League spokesman Greg Aiello said Glazer's acquisition did not violate the NFL's cross-ownership rules and that there was no problem related to the debt Glazer is incurring.

"The only issue is related to our policy of ownership interest in gambling casinos," Aiello said.

Aiello said there is no timetable for Glazer to respond to the NFL's request."