Here is a report from Yahoo that Malcom Glazer, an American billionaire is planning to stage a takeover of Manchester United. http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=afp-fbl_eng_manutd_us_sports&prov=afp&type=lgns Is this a good thing for the club? Or do you think it would be a bad move?
i hope, if it does go through that we wont go and buy tons of players like chelsea cause that'll be might G-A-Y
I hope it doesnt go through. Sounds like he may milk the club, without putting anything back. Better off as we are now. The last thing United need now is an owner like Glazer. Bill Gates would be ok. What are his motives? Love of Football? Its going to cost him alot of money to buy the team. Its not the best time for an American to buy a British club with dollars. No guys dont trust him and dont think he will do the club any good.
I got to say if it ain't broke don't bother fixing it. We don't need a sugerdaddy like those boys in Chelsea, who needed someone to come save them from their debts and bring in a proxy-team. We have done alright the last few years. if Manchester United was going through massive finicial troubles i could see a takeover as good thing. But the ship sems alright and on a good track. Plus is he a soccer fan? Or is this just a big business deal to net him a few million more? I say just let the team go on as it is, it is in good hands now.
Cant he just invest money, as a silent partner, then make money off some brand deals in the US or maybe some US MUTV and he has x % then we can go out and buy Rooney. I wouldnt want a Chelsea affair -very bad news that.
This guy doesnt love soccer that much. The MLS team in his own home city folded b/c he couldnt come up with a lousy 10 million or so to buy the team and keep it. No matter what you say about finances the owner of a soccer team should love soccer first and money second. This guy sucks.
He's also had a reputation as something of a cheapskate NFL owner -- then his team won everything, and the negative talk has all but disappeared. He is definitely not an Abramovich-style sugar daddy. If he buys - it will be because he thinks he can make money with the team.
I think a Glazer takeover would be a good thing, here's why: 1. Glazer has shown that he's interested in winning and committed to backing a top coach rather than interfering with it, thus the majestic ship that is Manchester United would likely continue its smooth sailing without threat or fear of disruption. 2. The Irish Cubic Expressions guys are looming, and if they take control of United will almost certainly interfere with SAF and likely replace him. While their choice (Martin O'Neill?) may be a fine coach, there really is only one SAF. At a minimum, they would interfere with the team's operations and cast an ominous cloud over the coaching staff. None of these things are good IMHO. 3. Glazer would likely pump some money into the player acquisitions, so that United wouldn't need to undercut its previous bid for players like it did with Robben. I doubt he'd be anything like Abromovich, because he isn't going to spend that kind of money, but there should be a small bump. Really, when you think about it, all you want from an owner is that he financially supports the club without interfering in the management. I think that's what Glazer would bring. His family's track record with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers certainly supports that notion. -Digital
If he were a soccer fan he would have pitched in and taken over Tampa Bay, but MLS is a long term investment, and a going concern like ManU is far more attractive in the short term. The fact that he's not involved in pornography leads me to believe it isn't profitable after all.
The guy didn't help out the Mutiny because he is a good businessman. He saw that unfortunately for the fans of MLS it is not now, nor will be for a long time, profitable. While it keeps putting a better product on the field each year, there really is not much in the way of dollar signs in the future for people like Anschultz and Hunt anytime soon. However, Glazer sees that if he take sover Man U he has as close to a sure fire money maker as there is in investments. I just think he's a good businessman.
Exactly, the only interest he has in the success of the club is monetary, not trophies or the overall health of the club. If he won't spend a (relatively) paltry amount of money to save the local football club, what's he going to do about spending money in order to keep a football club on the other side of the world at the top? This guy is bad news for United. Glazer is fools' gold personified.
I think the motto in big business is: you have to spend money to make money. I would assume, although I'm not sure if it's correct to do so, that Glazer would understand this. Take for example the acquisition of a marquee player. If you can get a couple of big name big draw players for 60-70 mill pounds, but you will recoup that at least 10 fold in ticket sales for Champions League games/prize money, marketing, US/Asia tour dates, and huge sales of Man Utd name brand stuff, Glazer would absolutely do it, and he seems to have the resources to do it. Therefore, I would think he would be good in the long run for Man Utd fans. One drawback, he is probably a results guy. If he's going to spend that kind of cash, your a$$ better produce or else you're gone. No keeping fan favorites around just because they're liked.
LOL As I have said this in many threads, ( " MAN UTD USA! ") let Malcom Glazer own that aspect of Man Utd and leave the english club alone, we get him off our backs and get a feeder club in the U.S. where we can train america's talent with our football knowledge. Then before long well get Fa Premiership quality american's out of MLS. Plus the americans get better USMNT players! It's the right thing to do! Don't let Chivas those racist's have all the fun! The MLS is becoming a feeder league, Ajax Orlando, Chivas USA whether rumours or not it's happening. Man Utd in Manchester, Conn. United States sounds pretty damn good to!
lol... well i doubt glazer turns us into the revolving door of chelsea... think he could be good as long as he doesn't interfere too much.
I actually think that quality private ownership is the best option. However, Glazer doesn't not appear to be a historical fan of Man Utd. Even more basic, he doesn't have the kind of money that Abramovitch has. If he bought United, he'd have to use club profits to pay the bank note for his own takeover. I'm not convinced he'd be any different than the PLC, but without hte checks and balances.
No. He turned his back on his local MLS team and let them die a paupers death. Evidently his kid claims to be a Man U fan. His kid is pushing the deal through. It's more about the social habits of the rich than anything else. It's a status move.
Even if his son is a ManU fan that does not explain it. he is interested in making money. Unless you have the billions of abramovich to spend, and possibly lose, you don't go and buy out a team. Even if your boy bleeds red. Billionaires don't become billionaires by wasting money, he has his eye on making money.
I fear his takeover would result in our club's manager having less control of the team. At Chelsea they claim now that no transfer occurs without their manager's "consent". I hope that at Man United it would be ONLY the manager that initiates transfers, not that he is presented with various possibilities and told to dump some, sign some. However, I fear more that merchendising profits would go to his pocket too often. On that note, where do they go at present? We are the world's highest earning team, but do not show it in the transfer market as often as Real do.
That's because Real Madrid don't have to balance the books. If they get in HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in debt, the Spanish government bails them out.