Glazier to take over Man United.

The Muppet

Slash/ED wrote:

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.

It's simple really the fans want it to remain a PLC and not go back into private ownership. What is crazy is all this talk of ripping up season tickets and forming a new club aka Wimbledon. It looks like a done deal at this satge so We'll just have to see how it Pans out.

The Rooster

Manager
Unless Ferguson decides himself that this would be a good time to go, I think the takeover by Glazier will cement his position, rather than weaken it. I think if the status quo had remained and United lost the FA Cup final, there would have been a big push by the Irish to get O'Neill in. Now I believe Glazier will offer Ferguson a longer deal than his current 1 year one.

TV Rights
As most of the knowlegdable people on the site have said, United are locked into a TV deal for a number of years - everyone gets the same basic price, but the more often you appear to more money you do get, but at the end of the season there's not a huge different between what MU get and what WBA get.

What I've heard re a future TV deal is that next time there will be another deal with Sky (or somebody else - I'd bet on it going to BBC or ITV) similar to the current one, but at a much reduced price. But also every club will have the rights to screen all their away games live on MUTV etc, which they will sell on a PPV or season ticket basis. The reason why it is just away games is because it should not affect attendances at PL games, where if all home games were live it could affect numbers at many grounds. One thing it would be the end of though is top flight games at 3pm on Saturday afternoons.

~Rebel~

The Rooster wrote:

Manager
But also every club will have the rights to screen all their away games live on MUTV etc, which they will sell on a PPV or season ticket basis. The reason why it is just away games is because it should not affect attendances at PL games, where if all home games were live it could affect numbers at many grounds. One thing it would be the end of though is top flight games at 3pm on Saturday afternoons.

But isn't each away game another teams home game? so all/none would be televised on that basis.. or do you mean they'd be on a private supporters channel, so would each club need their own channel?

opr

I heard yesterday on the News that with a club he bought in America i think it was the Bucking Broncos he promised to put 50% of the money up for a new staduim and after he gained ownership he said to the city either you pay for the stadium or i move the team - NICE GUY

Take it

The Rooster wrote:

TV Rights
As most of the knowlegdable people on the site have said, United are locked into a TV deal for a number of years.

Quite insulted at that comment as its obiously aimed at me, but if those people were so knowledgable, they would know that BskyB contract was signed in 2001 for 5 years therefore ends in 2006 would you call that a "number" of years??

And from the "away" game perspective if this was true and other clubs joined this trend, all there away games would not be allowed to be shown on sky thats half of there season in every game there is one "away" team so if everyone went there own way sky couldn't show anything and you could only see Away games for your club if you subscribe to there station that is

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

As most of the knowlegdable people on the site have said .....

Rooster, I find it ironic that you've posted something like this. Practically every conversation that has come up on this site about Glazer taking over you have said that any debt taken out for a loan to buy United would be absorbed by him and not the club. Now it's coming out that once he owns 75%+1 share he can transfer the debt onto the club.

Did you make up what you said back then or perhaps you weren't so 'knowlegdable' as you'd like to pretend?

The Muppet

I heard something this morning on BBC news about the Monoplies commission taking an interest in the takeover. Something to do with the amound of Debt involved. Does anyone else have any info on this?

Sponge Bob

He bought a team in Tampa Florida and then gouged that city for a new stadium (free) in order to keep the team there by then threatening to move the team to the following cities (not at the same time ) . He has only succeeded in sports so far by getting the 'host' to pay for the parasite .

How do the following names sound ?

Baltimore United.
Los Angeles United
Hartford United
Osceola County United

from .

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/24/TampaBay/Stadium_tax_helped_pa.shtml

Mossy Monk

BolBill wrote:

Ah be gorra a leprachuan taking over at Man U, waaaaahhhh ha ha

phew, i'm not the only one to see the striking resemblance

BolBill

Has anyone thought that if Fergie hadn't have dicked around with Rock Of Gibraltar that maybe Magnier and McManus wouldn't have sold there shares to John mcCrirrick ?????

yop

Has anyone thought that if Fergie hadn't have dicked around with Rock Of Gibraltar that maybe Magnier and McManus wouldn't have sold there shares to John mcCrirrick ?????

It had crossed my mind but at the end of the day they are business men and they have 120 million to divide between them

I am still to be convinced that Glazier is either a bad or good thing for United. All we have heard is speculation, he will sell the ground, increase tickets, give 20 million transfer etc etc, he or no one from his company have made any statements, which is a bit worrying.

I cannot remember but what sort up lead up was it from Roman taking over Chelsea??

As far the Monopolies commission, they interferred before I think, was becasue United was a private company when Sky tried to buy in, now they are a PLC???? Could be wrong.

SteM

BolBill wrote:

Has anyone thought that if Fergie hadn't have dicked around with Rock Of Gibraltar that maybe Magnier and McManus wouldn't have sold there shares to John mcCrirrick ?????

It's possible but I'd say the huge profit they made had a lot more to do with it - I wouldn't think that revenge on Fergie would be the reason to sell their shares.

yop wrote:

As far the Monopolies commission, they interferred before I think, was becasue United was a private company when Sky tried to buy in, now they are a PLC???? Could be wrong.

IIRC United were a PLC when Sky tried to buy up the shares years ago. I'd have no idea why the monopolies commission in the UK would become involved in this issue, I checked the bbc.co.uk business microsite and found nothing about it.

Pigman II

Davey Devil wrote:

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.

Amen to that! The re-tooling caused by the advent of the PremierLeague killed my interest in English footy too!

Personally a lot of this ManU paranoia can be put down to plain old xenophobia and the unfortunate fact that Glazier (thanks to his facelifts and badly dyed hair transplant) is officially the strangest looking human being this side of David Guest. Hard to trust a face like that!

As for ManU supporters worrying about paying thru the nose thanks to Ol'Uncle Malc's avarice ... well isn't that what you lot are there for? After all I don't know too many other clubs that actually have official SHOPS on the highstreet of various cities selling branded tat to their supporters, so why are you surprised that there are megabuck tycoons out there taking note of this trend and maneuvering in to fleece you for every cent you've got? You make it too easy for them!

The only ManU supporters I feel sorry for are the ones who actually stayed on to witness the teams lap of honour after the Chelsea game last Tuesday ... and that number couldn't have been more than 15,000? No doubt the majority of these were the ones populating Old Trafford back in the 80's when ManU frequently got gates in the 20k's and undoubtedly they'll also the ones (despite their meek calls for 'boycott') who'll stick around and still be taking it up the ass whichever way the club on field fortunes go.

The Muppet

yop wrote:

As far the Monopolies commission, they interferred before I think, was becasue United was a private company when Sky tried to buy in, now they are a PLC???? Could be wrong.

THat was 1998 , United were a PLC but The commission halted their bid because of conflict of interest. Thast's not the case this time so I am wondering how they can be concerned but as I said there was mention of it on the BBC news this morning.


I would rather the fans owned United but if thats not to be it doesn't really bother me who owns it as long as they have the interest of the club at heart and will continue to invest in its developement. AS Yop says there are lots of stories about Glazier but he has said very little so we may just wait and see what developes.

THE £300 million debt is worrying but to put it into perspective it's about the same amount Arsenal will owe for Asburton Grove. If Arsenal can service such a debt it should not be a problem to a club like united.

Take it

The diffrence i see between Roman and Glazier to Roman this is a hobby i dont even think he got into debt went buying Chelsea where Glazier is a business man who has got into debt and needs to make a profit

sleepwalker

ferguson could quit over this would be a good option for him to use this whole fiasco as a good excuse to get out while he can

all this "Not for Sale" stuff is fairly funny though, i wonder has anybody pointed this out to them yet ?

SteM

Take it wrote:

The diffrence i see between Roman and Glazier to Roman this is a hobby i dont even think he got into debt went buying Chelsea where Glazier is a business man who has got into debt and needs to make a profit

Spot on, he didn't come anywhere close to going into debt for Chelsea.

The Sunday Times said he was worth £7.5bn in 2004, putting him top of its 'Britain's Top 10 Richest'.

Source

SteM

sleepwalker wrote:

all this "Not for Sale" stuff is fairly funny though, i wonder has anybody pointed this out to them yet ?

No, I'd say your the first to notice it.

mr_angry

I'm no lover of Man Utd, but I'd hate to say any club (let alone one of Britain's most successful) be dragged under by a rich madman. This might be being over-hyped, but I think the supporters have every right to be worried by his previous ventures.

For the record, United were a PLC when BskyB tried to buy them - the premier league intervened with a rule stating that no company could own more than a 9% stake in two different clubs at the same time. Since BskyB already owned shares in Leeds United, their interest in Man U had to be dropped.

There was virtually no lead-up to Abramovic buying Chelsea. The deal was pretty much done on the quiet by himself and Ken Bates, and the explaining done afterwards.

sleepwalker

ah good to see your all angry and irritable and not willing to laugh at your fellow fans stupidity. keep that fight up, go make your new club so we can all have a good giggle

SteM

sleepwalker wrote:

ah good to see your all angry and irritable and not willing to laugh at your fellow fans stupidity

I had a good laugh at the stupidity of your post. :rolleyes:

redspider

yop wrote:

I cannot remember but what sort up lead up was it from Roman taking over Chelsea??

There was no lead-up. It was just announced as a done deal, as it was a private company and sold privately. Bates got a ****-load of dosh for it as Abromovich overpaid for it by a huge amount.

The Man U deal is at least more open because Man U are a PLC and on publicly traded on the stock exchange.

In terms of the Glazer take-over, there is no way of knowing for sure if things will be worse than the current PLC situation. Glazer is likely to take it private if he can get enough shares. In reality, the club/business was in a bit of a limbo in recent times with Cubic Expression and Glazer combined owning more than 50% of the club, yet having no representation on the board! You may remember the 100 questions, the problems with Ferguson and how they were able to force the board to change Ferguson's contract into a rolling one.

Its a pity that business operations can impact the football but that is the nature of the sport/buiness. When Man U became a PLC the business took the money that the float got and used it to good effect in footballing terms. The fans didnt complain then that the business side was doing too good and buying too many players.

What Glazer is doing by using a leveraged buy-out (LBO) (ie: using loans) is common practice. Eircom is a well-known example of an LBO. A simple analogy is when people buy a house. You get a loan on the asset and pay of interest and capital over a term.

New owners though may run the club/business with different aims and that may or may not have an effect on the football. So, Man U may be in a worse situation in the future than they have been, but only time will tell. Man U fans may be apprehensive, but if Man U fans wanted to make this "their club", then they could/should have arranged to purchase the club. They are customers of the club as it were, as they pay for its "services", so collective protest from all customers could have an effect on revenues and the new owners. Arranging that and maintaining that will be very difficult to do though, and at the end of the day its affecting the club you want to do well on the field. A players strike would be a different story, but players are quite mercenary at the end of the day and are not likely to go down that route.

Fromj an Irish point of view, Irish-based fans should be miffed with McManus and Magnier who have staged a corporate raid of a sort and come out quids in. They didnt do anything for the benefit of the club/football it would seem and have literally sucked out millions of cash from the club.

No doubt there will be other financial shenanigans at other clubs during the close season.

Redspider

redspider

In terms of the latest ownership levels, see:
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050513/323/fiqm4.html
So, Glazer owned over 69% this morning.

Looking at todays trades on the market:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MNU.L
8.4 million shares sold so far today, thats large volume and
about 3.3%. If Glazer is buying all/most of the shares, then
by close of the market today he could have over or very
near to 75% and effective ownership.

The upshot is that the current owners of the PLC, are selling
their shares without pressure from Glazer. If Man U fans have
any problems, they should be looking to lay the blame at
the previous owners, not at Glazer per se, as it is they
that have sold. It takes two to tango.

Redspider

MrJoeSoap

Paul McGrath gave the most sensationally boring and uninformed arguments about the takeover on Prime Time last night, I really do feel sorry for the guy, he couldn't possibly have known less.

On a more interesting note, they had Glazers biographer on too, and he reckoned that in 12 months time United fans won't even know Glazer owns the club.

Also, they had some head of some Man Utd supporters association who claimed that it was inevitable that Manchester United would die, and that FC United would be born in a type of AFC Wimbledon scenario. He seemed to be taking things way too far, saying they'd get attendances of 30,000 for their matches, despite the fact that they would be in the Ryman League.

A bit of a knee-jerk reaction, anyone else see the show?

PHB

So heres what I've gathered from the deal so far:

Very Likely:

Transfer kitty will be 100mill for 5 years, meaning we could spend 100 mill this summer, although I doubt that.
It does however give Fergie the chance to buy up say 6 18 year old wonderkids, alla Joaquin\Ramos\Casillas\Diego\Kompany or something, and sell off some of the old talent.
Making a super team of 18 year olds with a couple of oldies lying around, and then using the sale of them to have a transfer kitty for the coming years.
That 100mill does not include the money for a new keeper apparently, which has already been set aside.

Once all this takeover talk if sorted out, we will begin to forget that Glazier owns the club, as apparently he is totally interested in the business side of things and does not want to touch the football side of things, as he said, 'leave them to do what they do best, let me do what I do best' or something to that extent.

TV rights will be renegotiated

Stadium might be named, which tbh I don't care about, vodafone etc

Stadium expansion will continue and then continue further

Ticket prices will be raised

Aggressive marketing of Utd in America will happen, which in part will be buying a American wonderkid, just like the Asian plan. It is rumoured that Adu, of Football manager fame, might be this person. It is also rumoured that this includes keeping Howard around, but that was a done deal anyway.

Man Utd will owe 300mill in debt and 200 mill in preference shares

Somewhat Likely:
Fergie will be offered a 5 year deal so that the football
Gill will be fired

Unlikely:
Old Trafford will be sold

The Rooster

SteM wrote:

Rooster, I find it ironic that you've posted something like this. Practically every conversation that has come up on this site about Glazer taking over you have said that any debt taken out for a loan to buy United would be absorbed by him and not the club. Now it's coming out that once he owns 75%+1 share he can transfer the debt onto the club.

Did you make up what you said back then or perhaps you weren't so 'knowlegdable' as you'd like to pretend?

Hi Ste. When I state something that is my opinion (which of course we're all allowed) I always try to preface it with IMO or "I think" or similar. But if Glazer takes out a 500m loan to finance the purchase of the shares in MUFC, I can state abolutely categorically that this 500m bank loan will not and cannot be simply transferred to the balance sheet of MUFC, which would put MUFC 500m into debt.

The BBC (website) seemed to imply yesterday that MUFC could go 500m into debt. George Hook had a chap on from a Business and Economic Universtiy yesterday evening, and even he said when asked directly by Hook - will this up 500m loan go onto the ManU balance sheet, that yes it could. They are all wrong though.

So I know what you are all saying - "Rooster is right , and everyone else is wrong, Sure! :rolleyes: "

But even just think of it logically. I'm sure everyone has heard of debits and credits in accounting. And that for every debit, there must be a credit. Well I'd love to hear any of these so-called experts explain how you can just place a 500m credit/liability on the balance sheet of MUFC with no corresponding debit/asset thus plunging MU 500m into debt. It absolutely, categorically cannot be done.

Now I'm not saying Glazier won't put United into debt. He can do whatever he wants (subject to company law, which makes sure that he can't disadvantage the MU creditors - i.e. by paying divs in excess of profits). But to put them into debt, he'll have to spend money, either on expenses (of MUFC) or on assets, e.g. players, stadium improvments. He cannot say "here you can have my big loan".

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

The BBC (website) seemed to imply yesterday that MUFC could go 500m into debt. George Hook had a chap on from a Business and Economic Universtiy yesterday evening, and even he said when asked directly by Hook - will this up 500m loan go onto the ManU balance sheet, that yes it could. They are all wrong though.

So I know what you are all saying - "Rooster is right , and everyone else is wrong, Sure! :rolleyes: "

Rooster, you obviously know quite a bit about this sort of thing as you seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject but there are plenty of reputable sites - even the chief business analyst on Sky News yesterday - they're all saying the same thing.

This isn't my area so I'll see what happens but I find it hard to ignore what reputable news sources are saying.

PHB

I also heard a rumour which could be great if true, that United would sell Old Trafford, and build a new stadium circa Nou Camp size, 110k, using the combined funds of selling Old Trafford and money from the council that Glazier would obtain

The Rooster

Take it wrote:

Quite insulted at that comment as its obiously aimed at me, but if those people were so knowledgable, they would know that BskyB contract was signed in 2001 for 5 years therefore ends in 2006 would you call that a "number" of years??

And from the "away" game perspective if this was true and other clubs joined this trend, all there away games would not be allowed to be shown on sky thats half of there season in every game there is one "away" team so if everyone went there own way sky couldn't show anything and you could only see Away games for your club if you subscribe to there station that is

The current deal ends in 2007 I understand.

The "away" game idea is of course only an idea at this stage, but it is thought it is the only way to get the "everyone having their own games on TV" idea out of the starting blocks. And maybe 07/08 will be too early for it, but it is something all the clubs might go for. They certainly wouldnt go for a completely indivdual plan, and ManU and the other big clubs wouldnt want to break away from the Premier League. T

he idea is (sorry if I didnt explain it properly the first time) that every club would have their own channel and screen all their away games and none of their home league games.

It wouldnt in any way affect the next Sky deal - other than to make it a bit cheaper (thus bringing ITV and BBC more into the bidding possibly), as it won't have exclusive rights because the away team's pay channel will also show it - but chances are that's only a small proportion of viewers for each game. There will be plenty of people who won't buy a sub to a club channel, but would be interested in seeing games (i.e. fans of lower division clubs) and of course most people would like to see, e.g. ManU v Arsenal - not just fans of those clubs.

So every club will still get a big wedge of cash, plus they'll all have the potential to make a lot more depending on how popular they are. Its an idea that has a chance of success. A lot more chance than ManU just breaking away on their own.

MrJoeSoap

This whole saga just goes to show how the football has been left behind and the money has taken over.

SteM

PHB wrote:

I also heard a rumour which could be great if true, that United would sell Old Trafford, and build a new stadium circa Nou Camp size, 110k, using the combined funds of selling Old Trafford and money from the council that Glazier would obtain

To be built where? I'd be surprised if this happens tbh.

Slash/ED

The Muppet wrote:

It's simple really the fans want it to remain a PLC and not go back into private ownership. What is crazy is all this talk of ripping up season tickets and forming a new club aka Wimbledon. It looks like a done deal at this satge so We'll just have to see how it Pans out.

But if your a PLC that's the risk you take, you used being a PLC to build up a financial empire, this was the risk. It's a bit daft complaining about it now, what he's doing is both legally and morally completley correct.

growler

SteM wrote:

To be built where? I'd be surprised if this happens tbh.

Surrey

The Rooster

SteM wrote:

Rooster, you obviously know quite a bit about this sort of thing as you seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject but there are plenty of reputable sites - even the chief business analyst on Sky News yesterday - they're all saying the same thing.

This isn't my area so I'll see what happens but I find it hard to ignore what reputable news sources are saying.

It does worry me a bit that everyone is taking the same line. When all I know says it can't be done!

I think what they must be really saying is that MUFC will be the entity that repays the debt, and so everyone sensationalises it by saying MUFC are in debt. There is a big difference, namely MUFC can only pay money to Glazer (to repay the debt) out of profits it makes - so MUFC still should not go into debt (unless it takes out loans to buy players etc.), and certainly will not go into 500m debt.

Then the really worst case scenario is that Glazer goes bust, so the banks take ownership of the shares. Then the bank makes the crazy decision of not selling the shares to a third party, but instead sells Old Trafford and lots of players to generate the monies owed. Again, in this way MUFC would have ended up paying the debt, but this is really far-fetched.

Now I've been talking about debt only and not preference shares. But if preference shares are issued I would have thought it would have been by the Red Football Ltd rather than MUFC, but I havent seen the detail on this.

SteM

growler wrote:

Surrey

No need to apologise.

Growler, you're becoming predictable. I knew you'd post a smart answer.

A Dub in Glasgo

redspider wrote:

Fromj an Irish point of view, Irish-based fans should be miffed with McManus and Magnier who have staged a corporate raid of a sort and come out quids in. They didnt do anything for the benefit of the club/football it would seem and have literally sucked out millions of cash from the club.

Is that not the fundamental basis of capitalism? M&M were in for the money from day 1 and have now made quite a profit. Any other businessman, regardless of nationality, will have done the same.

Jivin Turkey

The Rooster wrote:

But even just think of it logically. I'm sure everyone has heard of debits and credits in accounting. And that for every debit, there must be a credit. Well I'd love to hear any of these so-called experts explain how you can just place a 500m credit/liability on the balance sheet of MUFC with no corresponding debit/asset thus plunging MU 500m into debt. It absolutely, categorically cannot be done.

Well technically:

with whatever vehicle was used to take the loan out (i.e. a newly incorporated company), it would transfer the loan to United through an intercompany transfer, creating a liability in Uniteds balance sheet (the obligation to repay the loan) and an intercompany asset (the amount owed by the original loanee). If the original loanee only had this £300M intercompany creditor on its books, the debtor relating to them on Uniteds balance sheet would no longer be recoverable. The debtor would have to be written off leaving United with just the obligation to pay the loan.

Im pretty sure thats right but there are plenty of ifs and buts about it. In reality one could only understand what is actually going on by performing an audit of all Glazers interests.

Edit: after further thought, and work on my general ledger the loanee would also have an asset of a loan to directors (Glazer). So the debtor in Uniteds books would remain recoverable unless Glazer himself went into debt.

Jivin Turkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that not the fundamental basis of capitalism? M&M were in for the money from day 1 and have now made quite a profit. Any other businessman, regardless of nationality, will have done the same.

And fair play to them, what do they owe United or its fans? Particularly after their purchase of the shares was greeted with hostility as a result of the racing fiasco.

Slash/ED

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that not the fundamental basis of capitalism? M&M were in for the money from day 1 and have now made quite a profit. Any other businessman, regardless of nationality, will have done the same.

Exactly did you ever think they were in it for anything other than the money?

yop

This whole saga just goes to show how the football has been left behind and the money has taken over.

In one lad, spot on

eoinf

Utd fans need to stop whining the man might bring some good to the club.

http://www.glazerfamilyfoundation.com/AboutUs.aspx?b=1

the link above demonstrates his enthusiasm for doing well

opr

I have seen on a few other boards that JP McManus and John Magnier are Liverpool Fans. Is this true ?

If it is maybe they would like to re-invest all that money they have made ?

Keano_sli

Joel Glazer said: "We are delighted to make this offer to acquire one of the pre-eminent football clubs in the world.

"We are long-term sports investors and avid Manchester United fans,

"Our intention is to work with the current management, players and fans to ensure Manchester United continue to develop and achieve even greater success."

Statement from Joel Glazer, edited was 11 pages apparently, does this give us any grounds to hope that the worst will not happen and these guys might turn out ot be good for United. Still not happy personally but willing to wait and see, as basically there'e SFA I can do.
If they manage somehow to tap into the US market to generate more income for the club it could be a very good thing, Chelsea don't have as lucrative a market to tap into in Russia not that it matters when their main Russian fan has all the oil but once the shock of the change has passed who knows, hope for the best.

redspider

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

M&M were in for the money from day 1 and have now made quite a profit. Any other businessman, regardless of nationality, will have done the same.

(lost my post there)

Yes, I agree. The point I was making was that Man U fans should not be miffed at Glazer, but at the people that have sold their part of the club, down through the years. Its too late to get miffed at the last person in the chain. The others in the chain, all of them, have played their part, including M&M.

Man U have been a business for many years now:

UKP
Year 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Rev 169.1 173 146.1 129.57 116.01
Pro 19.42 29.78 25 14.94 11.95


If anything, the business aspect of the sport has suited Man U as they have been so succesful business wise that it has helped them football wise. They got their timing right though as they just started winning league titles when the big money started coming into the game from viewers (via Sky), and success begats money, money begats success, and so on. It seems ironic that Man U fans should get miffed at all about money. That is what has mantained their position in the league to date. And all the top teams spend money. Football/business has been intertwined for decades.

Flukey

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 .

Oh I remember. It is very easy to, as we used to be able to see the matches back in those days, without being ripped off.

Davey Devil wrote:

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.

There is your answer Big Ears. As Davey shows, Sky has been the worst thing to ever happen to English soccer. It has torn the heart out of the game.

---

Dear Soccer fans,

As you all know, I've been looking to buy the United's of Manchester for a little while now. I've also heard that some of you may not be too happy about me using, sorry, buying the club in order to reach new heights and also, that I may not be a fan. Well fear not, as I'm writing this personal letter to let you know that I'm a genuine fan of your blue devils.

I began rooting for the United's back in 1992 when our little Malcolm JR was practising those Soccer home runs out in the yard. I loved the way you turned defence into offence, and the way that Bobby Shearer used to top half it into the goal bag. Oh man, that play was hot. My son tells me that you even out-zoned your City rivals Southampton in the 4th quarter of the FA World series.

As for your current team, that Rude guy is awesome!!!! I see a profitable future at the United, with the young talent of Cristiano Rooney (man, that guy can dance!) and Peter Shilton giving us hope in defeating the evil Russian tyranny which assaults the freedom of our beloved Soccer.

With the marketing potential of those Neville brothers and that Pearce dude leading the team, we can all look to achieving our beliefs of a better future. Especially when I add Alexei Lalas and Cobi Jones to the starting 15.

Now to you, the fans:

I've been to see the United's play once before, and the respect you pay your team in silently admiring the play out on the pitch was overwhelming. Because of this, i've just purchased a new GBP45 million mansion in the Manchester to be close to you guys. And more good news is i'm planning to add an extra 10,000 seats through corporate boxes so more genuine blue devils can experience the play.

What's with the prawn sandwiches I had to eat when I was there? Well, rest assured, it'll be super size prawn baguettes when I take charge. I can't wait to come over to the Manchester isles, as I love the country, especially the beaches and the hot chicks. I hope you can all see my vision of this future, with new shirt sponsors (Dunkin Donuts) and new team name, The Manchester Gloom, I'm sure things are looking bright.

Further good news for you guys is that I've just agreed a partnership deal with McDonalds, who will help in promoting the Manchester brand. This will involve re-naming the stadium to 'McTrafford' as well as an exciting launch of Manchester Gloom plastic fan toys in every happy meal. Cristiano Rooney will be the face of this campaign and during this, he will be marketed globally as Roonald McDoonald.

Take care dudes.

Regards,

Malcolm G.

Big Ears

Flukey wrote:

Oh I remember. It is very easy to, as we used to be able to see the matches back in those days, without being ripped off.

You remeber the Premiership before Sky had it even though it didn't exist......I see.(Obviously you mean the old (old) First Division)

jank

Where are ye getting the idea that he is going to give 100million in transfer funds?

Flukey

Yes Big Ears, and that is another stupid thing, where what was once the 4th division is now League 2. Whatever way they want to look at it, it is still in reality the 4th division.

eirebhoy

jank wrote:

Where are ye getting the idea that he is going to give 100million in transfer funds?

"Ferguson will be offered a long-term contract as part of a five-year plan," the Daily Express' chief football writer Harry Harris told BBC Radio Five Live.

"In that plan, he will be given £100m for new players."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/4542805.stm

CrowdedHouse

Keano_sli wrote:

If they manage somehow to tap into the US market to generate more income for the club it could be a very good thing,

The Americans will never cop on to Sock-her.Not much came of the tie up between United and the New York Yankees(ridiculous to start with I suppose ) a few years back.Or all the attempts at a proper league including hosting a World Cup



Soccer is a girls game in the US