Glazier to take over Man United.

wheres me jumpa

nice quote from sky news just now..

"the club has lived by the pound, it may now die by the dollar"

my big fear at the moment would be that fergie would leave. i cant imagine fergie working with people like this. my fears about glaziers plans are long term as i dont see him making any stupid moves too soon.

fergie doesnt deserve to leave like this.

jumpa

wheres me jumpa

http://www.manutd.com/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=175550&itype=466&icategoryid=120

heres the latest from joel btw

Infini

While I'm personally not a Man U fan I wouldn't want someone like Glazer controlling the club. He'll probably just try and milk as much money from the club as he can.

TwoShedsJackson

Infini wrote:

While I'm personally not a Man U fan I wouldn't want someone like Glazer controlling the club. He'll probably just try and milk as much money from the club as he can.

As opposed to the previous owners who were running it as a non-profit charity, of course.

David19

TwoShedsJackson wrote:

As opposed to the previous owners who were running it as a non-profit charity, of course.

It'll be run pretty much the same as it was before, maybe marketed a bit more abroad. The previous owners were there to make money too.

The Muppet

We'll see when the TV contracts is up if supporters of other clubs are as happy to see Glazier take over. When Man U and chelsea and possibly one or two others go it alone with exclusive rights to their games on their own TV stations what will Sky pay for TV coverage without the top teams and how much money will the lower clubs get from it?

David19

It would be a disaster if the big teams decided to break away from sky. The smaller clubs would certainly get less money and it would be a lot harder for people to watch premiership football, not to mention more expensive.

Can teams break away and show their own matches exclusively? Or do the rights come as an overall package from the premier league?

PHB

They come as an overall package, but I'd imagine the money that United would make from a private deal would overcome the pay to break contract. I'm just saying, if Glazier sees this as a huge payoff, i'm sure hes got a plan to get it.
Good for United, maybe for Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool.
Bad for nearly everybody else in the league since United's fanbase is just huge and they could sell the station all over the world.

If United get similar money to WBA its unreal considering the fact that every week I Can watch the United game, and if I can't im normally well pissed off. Theres been two occasions this season when there hasn't been the United game on TV on either RTE/Setanta/Sky/Prem Plus

p.s. I only buy Sky + Prem Plus for United games, if United had a channel with their matches I'd switch in a second since it would undoubtably cost way less.(atm it costs me 40 euro a month, i'd say MUTV with the matches would be cheaper) I'd imagine a lot of Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool fans might feel the same.

David19

PHB wrote:

p.s. I only buy Sky + Prem Plus for United games, if United had a channel with their matches I'd switch in a second since it would undoubtably cost way less.(atm it costs me 40 euro a month, i'd say MUTV with the matches would be cheaper) I'd imagine a lot of Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool fans might feel the same.

I meant its bad for viewers who want to watch the premiership, not just one team. The die hard fans will of course subscribe to their teams channel but the majority of people won't. Im a nuetral football supporter and I know that I wouldn't sign up to each of the top clubs channels and also sky. I imagine it would cost more than it does to just sign up for sky.

I don't think it would ever happen anyway. The rest of the premier league teams, sky and the premier league wouldn't alow it. I don't think this has happened anywhere in europe? They could negotiate more tv money from sky though.

PHB

Well I figure one of three things is gona happen.

A. Man Utd getting their own channel, showing their matches etc.

B. Man Utd getting a better TV rights deal through Sky

C. Nothing

Glazier has got to have planned to get money from somewhere, so I figure it aint C

The Muppet

David19 wrote:

I meant its bad for viewers who want to watch the premiership, not just one team. The die hard fans will of course subscribe to their teams channel but the majority of people won't. Im a nuetral football supporter and I know that I wouldn't sign up to each of the top clubs channels and also sky. I imagine it would cost more than it does to just sign up for sky.

I don't think it would ever happen anyway. The rest of the premier league teams, sky and the premier league wouldn't alow it. I don't think this has happened anywhere in europe? They could negotiate more tv money from sky though.

Thats exactly what Glazier did with his American Football team. AFAIK Sky or the Premier league would be powerless to stop him. I would gladly drop sky sports and buy a season ticket for all united games on MUTV considering every penny would go to the club I support. MUTV already show every united game but it's delayed coverage. I can't see the other clubs being too happy about it though.

A Dub in Glasgo

Maybe a blessing in disguise for neutral football fans in Ireland, maybe it will lead them to spend their money going to football in Ireland rather than just watching it on TV.

David19

Do you not think if it was possible it would have been done already? Its like when sky wanted to have all big games as pay-per-view matches, it never happened. If united, chelsea etc did decide to show their own games I imagine the other teams in the league would just refuse to play. Without them there's no matches at all.

I agree PHB, he needs more money from somwhere. I think it will be just a huge marketing push in the US. I don't know if americans will buy into it though, they haven't so far. If he does succeed man utd will be absolutely massive.

jank

AFAIK Sky or the Premier league would be powerless to stop him. I would gladly drop sky sports and buy a season ticket for all united games on MUTV considering every penny would go to the club I support. MUTV already show every united game but it's delayed coverage. I can't see the other clubs being too happy about it though

I think the premierleague CAN stop them. If the the other 19 clubs reject the idea put forward by utd then utd would have to drop the idea or else form their own league where by they play their reserves every week!!

Each club where by the premierleague is concerned has an equal say. I dont want a seria A situation happening i england where byt the vast majority of TV is divided between juve and AC milan. The differences are unreal there and it would ruin the league with major clubs going bankrupt.

The premierleague would never allow Galzier to so what he wants, but im sure galzier thinks he can roll over anybody he likes

edit

Oh i heard he wants to charge 20 euro PER MATCH!!
Talk about miliking it

jank

It has been estimated that United could make £15m a year more if they sold their rights individually, as European rivals like Real Madrid and Juventus do.
Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore does not believe the other clubs would allow them to go it alone as a two-thirds vote would be required to change the status quo.

from the bbc.

"The first thing he has to do is pay interest on his debt just to stand still, which means diverting profit which would otherwise have been reinvested in the club,"

The interest wait for it....46 million a year just to pay off the interest and stand still. This figure based on the fact that he is having a debt of the region of 560m transfered to the club.

Wasnt utd's profit last year around 26 million so he will be making a lose either way!?. Not sure if that includes share dividents though.


A lot of uncertainity still sorrounds this but 2 are for certain ticket prices will increase dramaticly( Most on here wouldnt give a **** either way ) and old trafford will be have a sponsor.

The cherry of 20 million a year in transfer funds is not as good as it looks. Its a drop in the ocean for a club like chelsea and newly promoted wigam have the same allocation for next year!

The Muppet

jank wrote:

from the bbc.



The interest wait for it....46 million a year just to pay off the interest and stand still. This figure based on the fact that he is having a debt of the region of 560m transfered to the club.

Wasnt utd's profit last year around 26 million so he will be making a lose either way!?. Not sure if that includes share dividents though.


A lot of uncertainity still sorrounds this but 2 are for certain ticket prices will increase dramaticly( Most on here wouldnt give a **** either way ) and old trafford will be have a sponsor.

The cherry of 20 million a year in transfer funds is not as good as it looks. Its a drop in the ocean for a club like chelsea and newly promoted wigam have the same allocation for next year!

Will those rules stand up if Challenged in the European court? If not I don't see them stopping him from going it alone with TV Rights. It's obvious he is a determined and ruthless individual and he must have some plans to increase revenue. Increased Global TV money being the most likely source IMO.

jank

Yea heard that the EU arent too happy about collective agrements but thats a dangerous game to be relying on a court to make decisions for you and will no doubt be defended by the FA or Premier league. After all he is an american the the EU court wont take too kindly to be told what to do by a yank. Plus it could take Years..........

PHB

The courts wont really care that he is American, if they did, he'd have a bigger case

The interest isn't 46 million afaik, where'd you get that figure from?

p.s. I couldn't care less if Old Trafford is named Nike Stadium if its for the good of the club

The Muppet

PHB wrote:

The courts wont really care that he is American, if they did, he'd have a bigger case

The interest isn't 46 million afaik, where'd you get that figure from?

p.s. I couldn't care less if Old Trafford is named Nike Stadium if its for the good of the club

True.

I wouldn't like to see us the losing The Old Trafford bit but wouldn't mind have something tagged onto it. For Instance "The Old Trafford Nike Stadium"

Pigman II

PHB wrote:

p.s. I couldn't care less if Old Trafford is named Nike Stadium if its for the good of the club

Just curious (not having a go), but if it was for the good of the club to move to a different city (as has often happened to teams in the US) would you be ok with that too? How much is a clubs tradition actually worth to you?

PHB

I'd have a problem with them moving city since first off, it'd be stupid and wouldn't benefit the club whatsoever, but from a tradition sense I think it will suck for Manchester United not to be in Manchester.

I think theres is a line you can draw, but i dont think tradition should hold back progress

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Muppet

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I,m not sure whether the bonus of seeing all the home games live would make up for missing the away ones. I subscribe to MUTV at the moment and see all games {home and away} delayed coverage. I would be happy with all home games live and delayed coverage on the away ones if it comes to that.

There may be net feeds for the away games too.

FatherTed

CrowdedHouse wrote:

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

Yeah, soccer is so bad in the US that they got to the quarter finals of the world cup in 2002 (and could do the same next year too...) with most of the players coming from MLS. All the Eurosnobs conveniently forget that.

But that's not the point. Soccer is a niche sport in the US and it will take decades before it would ever rise to the level of Am. Football, Baseball and Basketball, if ever. But there is enough of a following that it will survive and improve and with success comes popularity. I don't think Manchester United will be able to get much more popular in the US than they are now. There simply is just not enough of a market or interest.

Listen, we can go on and on about TV rights, merchandising etc but the only way Glazer will ever be successful ultimetely is if the team is successful. He is a business man and has already successfully taken a team from a scrapheap and turned them into a great team in the NFL. It is true that this is not the same as Man Utd but I think that is really all we have to go on now.

There is so much hysteria going on about this, with burning effiges, burning season ticket renewals etc etc. I think the "Not for Sale" signs are a little ironic when SU have been telling everyone for the 6 months to "Buy" shares. I think a lot of this has to do with Glazer being a yank, if it was some English guy there would not be the same amount of hysteria. People are going on about how he has never stepped inside Old Trafford, well some Russian fella never went to Stamford Bridge before he rescued Chelsea and that didnt stop him from making that team good. Was there the same amount of hysteria when Newton Heath became Manchester United, or when the club was bought and sold in the past for example, Louis Edwards, who never really cared much for football?

I guess my overall contribution is to say Calm Down. It's not the end of the world, Glazer will only be successful if the team is and I think in the long run Manchester United will be better off.

The Muppet

FatherTed wrote:

I guess my overall contribution is to say Calm Down. It's not the end of the world, Glazer will only be successful if the team is and I think in the long run Manchester United will be better off.

Right Ted.



My fear would have noting to do with Glaziers nationality but the debt. United are going from a club with zero debt to owing £300 million overnight. The club should be financially sound enough to service that debt but it will be with money that Fans would rather see invested in players and facilities.

Another Part of the worry is that United really need to be sucessful for Glaziers plan to work and if they are not there is always the fear of what happened at Leeds a few years ago. It's a hugh Financial gamble on Glaziers part and if it backfires Manchester United the Club will be the ones carrying the can.

wheres me jumpa

The Muppet wrote:

Right Ted.



My fear would have noting to do with Glaziers nationality but the debt. United are going from a club with zero debt to owing £300 million overnight. The club should be financially sound enough to service that debt but it will be with money that Fans would rather see invested in players and facilities.

Another Part of the worry is that United really need to be sucessful for Glaziers plan to work and if they are not there is always the fear of what happened at Leeds a few years ago. It's a hugh Financial gamble on Glaziers part and if it backfires Manchester United the Club will be the ones carrying the can.

agreed.

before the whole glazer affair we all admitted there were problems at united. so this is happening at a critical stage. looking back through the years, teams seem to dominate on cyclical basis. united have dominated the last ten years and maybe now its time to return to the dark ages of pre 92/93.

now i know this theory is hardly a solid basis to go on, but it does suggest that teams struggle to replace the orignial team that pioneered their domination. which is exactly what is happening at united.

so mr. glazer is going to need patience. with the right signings united could bounce back next year, but he does not offer the money he is on board a sinking ship.

and it is when the ship starts to sink that desperate measures will be made, when the business takes over the football. and this is the case for all premiership teams. it is just on much larger and magnified scale at united.

for the moment we need to accept his arrival and see how it goes. its unclear how it is going to go but it is definitely been a week that we all will be looking back at in decades to come...for one reason or another.

jumpa

PHB

Thats thing thing jumpa.
United are in their depression part of their cycle and they are rebuilding for the future imo, and thus I don't expect them to win the PL next year, not saying they won't, but I don't expect them to.
Glazier doesn't understand this about football, all he knows is that Uniteds been on top for the last 10 years, but does he know that the midfield is going to have to be entirly replaced? I doubt it, and now I'm sure Fergie has dropped that bombshell

I don't think we can succedd at the level he wants, no Premiership club ever has

A Dub in Glasgo

I find it very hard to believe that a man like Glazer will commit those sums of money to buy Man United without somebody advising him on the cyclical nature of football. He will be aware that the team needs overhauling if they want to dominate again. Any 10 year old with an interest in football will have been able to tell him that.

PHB

He hasn't shown anything to prove that he is aware an overhaul is needed.
100 mill in transfers over 5 years is just enough to get a new player or two every season, something required for any top club to keep the blood flowing.
Besides that United need at least 50 million to buy a new midfield, and thats not gona come

Headshot

hey lads anyone getting those MUFC NOT FOR SALE WRIST BANDS

http://www.suforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7504&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=wrist&start=60

SteM

FatherTed wrote:

It's not the end of the world, Glazer will only be successful if the team is and I think in the long run Manchester United will be better off.

I don't know if this is 100% true to be honest. Over the last 2 seasons they've not been successful in either the CL or Premiership yet every home Premiership match has sold out (and 99% of the CL matches too I'd imagine). This is on top of the fact that they haven't played particularly attractive football over the last few seasons. People coming to the stadium brings people in to the megastore on match day and generates funds.

meditraitor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I find it very hard to believe that a man like Glazer will commit those sums of money to buy Man United without somebody advising him on the cyclical nature of football. He will be aware that the team needs overhauling if they want to dominate again. Any 10 year old with an interest in football will have been able to tell him that.

But the previous United downward cycle lasted 27 years,

LoneGunM@n

The level of debt that he's saddling the company with is the main worry I have ... If the man on the moon wanted to own the club, then go ahead ... as long as the team are doing well, then I'm a happy camper!!

To service the interest payments [which are far greater than the annual profits], he is going to have to do some major re-structuring or some really inovative marketing, 'cause I doubt 20mill is going to buy a championship winning player!!

Johnny Giles came up with a novel idea on the Right Hook last week .... he said that if Glazier can engineer a deal for live broadcasting of United matches to Asia and charges £10.00 per game ... 2 million viewers per home game at £10.00 would bring in approx. £420 million in asian tv revenue per season ... thus repaying the debts in no time!!

What ever happens, I hope he doesn't get bored & fcuk off, leaving his debts behind.

In relation to Chelsea ... wonder what would happen to them if Ambro decided he was bored??

LegacyUser

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

hey lads anyone getting those MUFC NOT FOR SALE WRIST BANDS

http://www.suforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7504&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=wrist&start=60

Pretty stupid to get them since MUFC is dead and it is just known as Manchester United now.

Headshot

cheesedude wrote:

Pretty stupid to get them since MUFC is dead and it is just known as Manchester United now.

i know that,tell that to the fellas who are making them

Chucky the tree

PHB wrote:

He hasn't shown anything to prove that he is aware an overhaul is needed.
100 mill in transfers over 5 years is just enough to get a new player or two every season, something required for any top club to keep the blood flowing.
Besides that United need at least 50 million to buy a new midfield, and thats not gona come

no it doesnt, well it does for fergie becuase he is brutal in the transfer market.

If he stops buying over-hyped youngsters, especially english ones they wont need to spend alot.

TwoShedsJackson

cheesedude wrote:

Pretty stupid to get them since MUFC is dead and it is just known as Manchester United now.

It's stupid because Manchester United is for sale, as has been abundantly proved over the last few days.

Blackjack

Interesting take on SU's approach from the Irish Times Yesterday.
Subscription is required, however I will try to translate:

Shareholders United efforts may have hastened Cubic Expression's sale of their shares.

The attempt to launch an investment trust with the assistance of a Japanese bank would appear to have indicated to the CU pair that it was not in their interest to make any attempts to own United outright.

If Shareholders United had been successful in achieving their goal of owning a blocking stake, the due from Cubic would have had nowhere to offload their holding, so the offer from Glazier at £3.00 a share was all they needed get them to accept.

I reckon myself that if Shareholders United had left well enough alone some months back instead of protesting at Racing tracks and the like, they'd have less to be whinging about now.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

astrofool

I saw a breakdown of the way the shares were distributed the other day in the irish indo, and it had SU with a 1.5% share. So any thoughts of getting to 25% must have really been a pipe dream, I don't know where the 18% people here had been saying came from.

As for Glazier, it'll really just mean that MU have a private owner like almost every other club in the PL, and in Europe.

The Muppet

astrofool wrote:

I don't know where the 18% people here had been saying came from.

I misunderstood that too . What they said was that 18% of shares was held by United Fans . Ir remains to be seen if these fans sell their shares.

Blackjack wrote:

reckon myself that if Shareholders United had left well enough alone some months back instead of protesting at Racing tracks and the like, they'd have less to be whinging about now.ackjack

I think you are mixing up the Education Comittee with Sharholders United. AFAIK there is no link between the two. I am a member of SU but would not condone any illegality in fighting Glazziers takeover. I would rather walk away from the club than that.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.