Glazier to take over Man United.

jank

typical utd will now beat arsenal in ther final......its written in the stars

PHB

how so?
I dont understand

LegacyUser

jank wrote:

typical utd will now beat arsenal in ther final......its written in the stars

What? :Confused:

Anyway, the way I look at it is: If he wants to make a profit, he has to be successful so that means on the pitch. So...is this as bad as it sounds?

MrJoeSoap

PHB wrote:

He has put everything he owns into this club now, so you figure he's gotta be dedicated to winning and success

Reminds me of the scene in the Simpsons -

Homer: Gee, Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know; way richer than Lenny.
Mr. Burns: Yes, but I'd trade it all for a little more.

jank

BBC just suggested that perhaps Fergie might call it a day? That would be what some people want, might even win over some of the fans

If the rummor was true, fergies last ever game with utd, the fa cup final. what extra motivation would the utd players want.

growler

Of course he's a business man, but he doesn't need to rely on MUFC doing well to still generate income ... the real fans will still fill the stadium no matter how well they are doing [maybe if they're doing badly the real fans will be able to access the matches live - no more prawn sandwich fans] and merchandise will still be bought, so by increasing ticket prices and merchandise and charging for parking at the grounds, he'll still generate massive income like he has done at Tampa Bay Bucaneers[/QUOTE]


the problem is that football doesn't need businessmen to try and run clubs like a business, it doesn't work , what you need are rich people who have a passion for the game and aren't going to try and look only at the books. Football is too full of dodgy agents, transfers, managers and unwritten codes of conduct for a total outsider to understand. Many have tried to apply the normal rules of business to a club and failed.

on the plus side, a new name like the Manchester Bucks , Manchester Marlins or The Trafford Tigers might be just the ticket to making the club a household name in the states, you'll also have big Thanksgiving games and larger panels of commentators to keep you informed about whats going on. A change of ball shape might also help Ronaldo's dribbling skills. Half time could be an hour long giving aging stars like Keane a chance to get their breath back. Having hot dogs and popcorn delivered to your seats combined with some top notch cheerleading will create a killer atmosphere that few other premiership teams could match.

Don' know what ye're worried about!

Headshot

i wonder will united will be the next Leeds united i hope not

jank

growler wrote:

Of course he's a business man, but he doesn't need to rely on MUFC doing well to still generate income ... the real fans will still fill the stadium no matter how well they are doing [maybe if they're doing badly the real fans will be able to access the matches live - no more prawn sandwich fans] and merchandise will still be bought, so by increasing ticket prices and merchandise and charging for parking at the grounds, he'll still generate massive income like he has done at Tampa Bay Bucaneers

the problem is that football doesn't need businessmen to try and run clubs like a business, it doesn't work , what you need are rich people who have a passion for the game and aren't going to try and look only at the books. Football is too full of dodgy agents, transfers, managers and unwritten codes of conduct for a total outsider to understand. Many have tried to apply the normal rules of business to a club and failed.

on the plus side, a new name like the Manchester Bucks , Manchester Marlins or The Trafford Tigers might be just the ticket to making the club a household name in the states, you'll also have big Thanksgiving games and larger panels of commentators to keep you informed about whats going on. A change of ball shape might also help Ronaldo's dribbling skills. Half time could be an hour long giving aging stars like Keane a chance to get their breath back. Having hot dogs and popcorn delivered to your seats combined with some top notch cheerleading will create a killer atmosphere that few other premiership teams could match.

Don' know what ye're worried about![/QUOTE]

Dont think this is the time to be poking fun growler

LegacyUser

Awhhh don't retire Fergie!!!!!!!!!

wheres me jumpa

im not sure what to feel about this however one thing is for sure, this is happening, he will be in control and no amount of burning shirts or season tickets will stop it. this man is indifferent to hostility.

nobody knows how he is going to rule his roost, it may work out well. it may work out disastorously, but thats what a PLC faces when it floats on the stock exchange, whether is this guy or someone else.

im just hoping the team gets through this and it doesnt affect their preparation for the cup final.

jumpa

PHB

People say that they will still fill out the stadium, perhaps that is so, but thats not where United's big profits come from, they come from merchandise, and that is entirly reliant on success.
Beckham issuch a huge marketing phenomen not because he was a pretty boy or as such, its because he is one of the best players in the world, and people like that.

Guy:Incognito

Wonder is there an american football coach looking for a code change? He might send Fergie off to manage Tampa Bay in a swap deal with their coach.

LegacyUser

Beckham is huge because he is a pretty boy, has extremely good fashion sense, represents the "new age" man and can be macho(playing football) and goodlooking and still do modelling, fashion etc. It is not just because he is a world class player.

PS: This is regurgitated from an article I read about him recently.

gimmick

Ive gone through this thread, and I cant actually see one valid reason as to why this is a bad thing? Can anyone shed any light on that for me, as no doubt it will the the topic of conversation in every pub in the UK and Ireland for the weekend.

Jonny Arson

You will be missed.

Thanks for the memories,

Zane from MTV2

Jivin Turkey

gimmick wrote:

Ive gone through this thread, and I cant actually see one valid reason as to why this is a bad thing?

Yeah, and while we are at it can someone please explain the difference between Glazer and the likes of McManus and Magnier?

McManus and Magnier are also both tycoons. Difference is Im certain Glazer is richer. Do people think that McManus and Magnier just went down to the bank to withdraw the money to purchase their shares? They needed big loans too, which would be secured on the shares, just like Glazer. They are the exact same.

As for this piece of classic comic irony from another scaremongering moron at Shareholders United:

"Oliver Houston of Shareholders United told the ITV News Channel: “This is by no means over. Our message to Malcolm Glazer and to people daft enough to lend him all this money is that not only will you not be able to increase your profits but you are going to see a very sharp fall in profits.

“Manchester United is going to become an extremely tainted brand. People will feel that this is no longer their club.”

Supporters own an estimated 18% of Manchester United and have tried to secure finance from Japanese bank Nomura to swallow a further 7% stake to block any moves to de-list the company from the stock exchange and take it private.

Pure genius. Particularly seeing as Glazer would have a better credit history not to mention better contacts and arrangment with any potential financiers he would get better rates etc.

Blackjack

"Mark Longden, of the Independent Manchester United Supporters’ Association, said he was staggered by the decision of the Irish duo to sell their stakes."

Given that the same Duo were threatened by the fans when they were buying shares in the past, what's staggering about their selling the shares, for a profit??????.
No doubt the Cubic Duo will receive abuse for "selling out" or some other such nonsense.

LegacyUser

Bah screw this thing. I'm bored of it already. Let's play football eh!!!!

thejollyrodger

initally i was against the take over but i think it will be for the best for Man Utd. I think there will probably be more money for players and a lot of crap players, managers, board room people will be gone.

wheres me jumpa

thejollyrodger wrote:

initally i was against the take over but i think it will be for the best for Man Utd. I think there will probably be more money for players and a lot of crap players, managers, board room people will be gone.

the man is their to make a profit and how does a football club make profit? by winning trophies.

the main thing is that he keeps his distance from the team. my big fear would be that we turn in to a real madrid type situation where managers come and go and certain players have to be played.

i dont care if he watches any matches, he could be a chelsea supporter for all i care as long he does his job and lets the team and the manager do theirs.

jumpa

TwoShedsJackson

Looks like that Budweiser ad will be coming true much quicker than people think so.

jesus_thats_gre

Blackjack wrote:

"Mark Longden, of the Independent Manchester United Supporters’ Association, said he was staggered by the decision of the Irish duo to sell their stakes."

Given that the same Duo were threatened by the fans when they were buying shares in the past, what's staggering about their selling the shares, for a profit??????.
No doubt the Cubic Duo will receive abuse for "selling out" or some other such nonsense.

Its just as well Mark is a fan and not a business man to be honest. Some of the comments being make are idiotic.

zAbbo

If the two Irish shareholders didn't sell there share, surely the stock prices would be vastly reduced due to the glazier not investing in the club

such is my understanding of business.

And business, is the name of the game, you think any of these people care about football ?

Take it

Glazier will not sign a deal with sky next year he will turn man u into a individual 'business' (team) in the premiership, to see them play home games you will need to subsribe to man u tv, which will be constantly littered with Man U ads and advertising pop ups during the game the man done this with Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Also if Glazier doesn't make a profit or can't pay back his debts, he is a business man, he will sell off what he sees as "assets" be it players or the stadium

Not a good move

_blank_

Take it wrote:

Glazier will not sign a deal with sky next year he will turn man u into a individual 'business' (team) in the premiership, to see them play home games you will need to subsribe to man u tv, which will be constantly littered with Man U ads and advertising pop ups during the game the man done this with Tampa Bay Buccaneers

This can't happen.

Brian017

Take it wrote:

Glazier will not sign a deal with sky next year he will turn man u into a individual 'business' (team) in the premiership, to see them play home games you will need to subsribe to man u tv, which will be constantly littered with Man U ads and advertising pop ups during the game the man done this with Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Also if Glazier doesn't make a profit or can't pay back his debts, he is a business man, he will sell off what he sees as "assets" be it players or the stadium

Not a good move

The FA signed a 4 or 5 year deal with Sky to show 88 games live plus 50 on PPV, last season, so surely this can't happen.

leeroybrown

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Yeah, and while we are at it can someone please explain the difference between Glazer and the likes of McManus and Magnier?

McManus and Magnier are also both tycoons. Difference is Im certain Glazer is richer. Do people think that McManus and Magnier just went down to the bank to withdraw the money to purchase their shares? They needed big loans too, which would be secured on the shares, just like Glazer. They are the exact same.

The difference as I see it is that McManus and Magnier were (until today) one of the main shareholders in Manchester United PLC but right now it looks like Glazer will soon become the sole owner of Manchester United Ltd. While the PLC ultimately existed to make money it was not solely managed at the whim of one magnate with a know modus operandi financing his takeover by heavily gearing the club.

jank

the only way it can happen is that utd form a league of there own and play against .......???

A TV deal has to encompass all premierleague clubs as far as i know.

johnor

Wonder if dirty kenyon will jump ship again for an extra mil...Cant be good for the club in the long term, if he gets his 75% the club will have 4 times the amount of debt that sunk leeds united. United are currently in third should they fall out of the top 4 god forbid, it would be desasterous....he might be able to get more money from american merch sales but champ league money is huge for united. cant see united free falling but alot of players had come out against the deal, i know solskjaer bought into shareholders united. Fergie has publicaly critised glazier and i doubt many of the die hard untied players....keane, nev, scholes, giggs will be too impressed either

jank

I hear in some reports that he could land the club in debt as much as 500 million.

How anybody can view that positively is beyond me.

LegacyUser

Who says the man comes in and sacks Ferguson? What is happening at United? Exciting times??? I think more like turbulent times and extremely turbulent ones at that.

OY

gimmick wrote:

Ive gone through this thread, and I cant actually see one valid reason as to why this is a bad thing? Can anyone shed any light on that for me, as no doubt it will the the topic of conversation in every pub in the UK and Ireland for the weekend.

I agree with this. I see a few people making some points here but the majority of people are just mad at nothing.

'It will be a bad move because he is stupid'
blah
blah
blah

Maybe it will be a bad move but then again this man could do for United what Ambromovich did for Chelsea! And do not start with the 'we want to be a pure club and do not want to buy the title', today football is about money and any club would switch with chelsea right now in my opinion.

This might not be a bad thing. Some money to buy some new players and to stop this slide into mediocrity.

Sponge Bob

This slide into mediocrity started in 2000 or so , Everton (blesses himself) are only a few points back and what have they spent all year then ?????

O Neill in situ by end June I would say

smemon

a bad day for manutd fc.

long term, the club's future is not certain anymore as it lies in one mans hands. one man who happens to be a ruthless businessman. the club is no longer democratic :mad:

on the pitch it should be good news as utd only have to get glaziers approval for who they want to buy. if he's got any sort of brain at all he'll splash the cash to try and win over some fans.

Slash/ED

I don't get the whinging, when Man U became a PLC they used the money they earned from that to boost their standing and turn themselves into a global sensation. That came with a risk, Glazer has taken over the club by useing completley fair, legal and moral means, the fans have no right to complain now, they should have thrown out their season tickets and protested in their thousands when they became a PLC.

Brian017

Interesting discussion on this on Prime Time now.

Sponge Bob

emmm lets see. 5m fans worldwide (tis said)

The caboodle was sold for £800m , about £16 per fan I make it.

Not very United in the end were we ?

Big Ears

After looking at all the facts and figuires I have prepared a dossier on what exactly will happen to United in the coming year and months :

nothing other than what has happened in recent seasons , that is all the club will be the same as always .

Now cheesedude if you don't mind il join you in that game of football .

Aquos76

Just in from work guy and I have just read through the full thread and there are some interesting points after been raised alright. I must admit that I am really worried about this deal going through. I have invested a few pounds in the Shareholders United fund and I was (and still am) totally against this from the start.

My main concern is that up to present day, the club was in profit and we were been told by the board that there was no money available for transfers, now that the reports suggest that Utd could be as much as 500m in debt when Glazier has suscessfully taken control of the whole club, where will the transfer funds come from then.

Old Trafford will probably be the first thing to go, leased out and bought back over 50 years or so, and we will probably be calling it the Nike Arena or something like that. Ticket prices are also going to be hit further. Season tickets have already increased by 13% for next season, mainly due to failing profits and income involved with failing to get past the second round of the CL.

Really though, until we get to see the full details of the planned takeover, we will have to stop speculating and just hope that things wont change to much. I really have my doubts though.

PHB

Why would he sell Old Trafford?

Slash/ED

There will be no need for it when Man U start ground sharing in the Emirates stadium.

Aquos76

PHB wrote:

Why would he sell Old Trafford?

500m is alot of money to try and come up with. Imagine what some one like Nike would pay to be able to call it the Nike Stadium

smemon

PHB wrote:

Why would he sell Old Trafford?

yeah i doubt he's that bad. imagine the fans if he did that! :mad: it's possible if he really wants to maximise profits but thats going a bit too far even for the businessman he is.

basically he's borrowing money to buy the club, and expects utd fans to pay that back and more (raising ticket prices, tapping into the far east market etc), basically ripping off the average joe to pay him so he can get out of debt.

i dont see too many advantages in that. just because everything has been done legally and by the books etc doesnt mean utd are in safe hands and cant be ruined. at the end of the day this guy has the power to destroy man utd. ok it probably wont happen but there's always the risk. a risk the fans and club could do without.

Flukey

Nothing much will change. He is not going to make radical changes to the club. It is a lot of paranoia by the supporters. You get this rubbish that he is unsuitable because he has never been in Old Trafford. True, but then neither have most of their so-called fans. The team will still run out to play Southampton on Saturday and in other matches in the future, no matter who owns it.

Jivin Turkey

leeroybrown wrote:

The difference as I see it is that McManus and Magnier were (until today) one of the main shareholders in Manchester United PLC but right now it looks like Glazer will soon become the sole owner of Manchester United Ltd.

True and this I see as the only obvious drawback. CE owned close to 1/3 of the club anyway, while there might have been a number of large shareholders 2 groups held the majority, so bringing it from 2 to 1 isnt that big a step.

leeroybrown wrote:

While the PLC ultimately existed to make money it was not solely managed at the whim of one magnate with a know modus operandi financing his takeover by heavily gearing the club.

At the same time, with him as the only owner there is potential for him to get seriously involved and passionate about the club, which could result in huge benefits for the team and entire club.

The club was already heavily geared, though indirectly, as most of the large shareholders would have borrowed small fortunes to buy such volumes of shares. The same principal applies, should they default, the bank seizes the shares and does as it pleases.

As regards the sale and leaseback of OT. I dont think that would be such a bad thing. What essentially would happen is a bank would purchase the ground and immediately lease it back under a finance lease. United would still actually own OT but it would be just like taking out a huge loan on the ground over 20 years or so, giving them an X hundred million kitty now (X being the value of the ground, Im speculating but Id say at least £200M) which would be repayable over 20 years. Its a common practise amongst all big businesses. Only last month AIB did the same with their new pemises in Ballsbridge.

Take it

By selling the stadium I mean they will play there but it will be under (who ever bought its conditions)

As for them leaving the sky agreement as far as I know it is possible as its the individual clubs that sell there rights to T.V (do you think West Brom or Crystal palace get the same amount Man U or Chelsea get off sky?) its just that sky have had a domination, although I do admit I could be completely wrong, but the league don’t own united so they can do what they want, the FA don't own the league they run it, they brokered the deal with sky on behalf of the clubs, he has done it with the Bronkos so why wouldn't he TRY to do it with man U?

Hope I am wrong as it would ruin the PL

Flukey

Sky have ruined the Premier League.

Jivin Turkey

Take it wrote:

By selling the stadium I mean they will play there but it will be under (who ever bought its conditions)

They wouldnt sell the stadium, a sale and leaseback is a different arrangement. United would still own it and retain all the risks and rewards from it.

Take it wrote:

As for them leaving the sky agreement as far as I know it is possible as its the individual clubs that sell there rights to T.V (do you think West Brom or Crystal palace get the same amount Man U or Chelsea get off sky?) its just that sky have had a domination, although I do admit I could be completely wrong, but the league don’t own united so they can do what they want, the FA don't own the league they run it, they brokered the deal with sky on behalf of the clubs, he has done it with the Bronkos so why wouldn't he TRY to do it with man U?

Contracts have been signed which will have to be fulfilled. It cant possibly happen for years.

When it comes down to it, so many people think that this is going to fall flat on its face. The only way this will happen is if Uniteds business goes tits up in the next few years? Can anyone actually see this happening? They are the biggest global footballing brand by a mile.

Big Ears

Flukey wrote:

Sky have ruined the Premier League.

Sky made the Premier League , or do you remeber what the Premier League was like before Sky had it , thats right it didn't exist .

Davey Devil

Big Ears wrote:

Sky made the Premier League , or do you remeber what the Premier League was like before Sky had it , thats right it didn't exist .

Bring back the Old First Division, I say. Back when football was on terrestrial TV,
players who got 5,000 a week were loaded, no girlies diving around crying, teams didn't clap other teams onto the pitch, Vinny Jones, 3 foreigner rule, only champions in the European Cup, Des on Match Of The Day and women knew their place(making the half time cuppa). That was when football ruled the world.

Football died the day the Premier League was born. Sure it makes alot more money now but the spirit of the game is gone. I used to love football when it was a sport, now it's just a business.