Man Utd have an estimated 40 million fans in Asia alone - I’m not sure the views of a few thousand disgruntled Mancs is going to make much of a difference.
It’s been mentioned already, but Old Trafford will be full for every game without a problem.
If Man Utd fans were truely interested in supporting a local team that’s the “heart and soul of the community” they’d go watch Bury, rather than shouting at the less-than-local Man Utd players.
Arsenal are now £380m in debt to build their new stadium, but the same protests haven’t appeared. Some fans are worried that it’ll hit the transfer budget, but it’s not done them much harm so far. That’s the way business works.
Man Utd bought their success, much as Chelski are doing now, but this is merely the other side of the coin.
The thought of the Cowboys being bought by brits and moved definitely does not stir up feelings of defensive loyalty in me, as a Giants fan.
However, if some Saudi Oil Sheik decided to buy the Giants, I think my head might explode before I could voice my outrage. I sympathize wuth the Man U fans on this one.
And not all North American owners are obsessed with the bottom line. Some don’t give a rat’s ass about profitibility, but instead only care about having the last game of the season be a meaningful game.
And the Dodgers have been an average at best team for all those years, until 2004. I am sure Murdoch made a bunch of money during this time, but his ownership didn’t lead to pennants or championships.
It makes him much different then Steinbrenner for one, and Abramovich (Chelsea owner) for another. These people make lots of money, and also care a great deal about winning for the sake of winning and the sake of the club.
I do, however, agree that many owners are just like Glazer, and I also think that is a problem in major sports. It is really a better financial decision to just sit back and operate a mediocre club, pocket pooled TV rights and profit sharing, don’t risk any money on big players and winning, jsut be good enough to keep people coming to the stadium.
Trouble with applying the ‘sit back, let the club do OK-ish, take the money’ business model to the Premiership is that being mediocre isn’t a safe option. Unlike American leagues, there’s the relegation of three teams to be concerned with. Sure, Man U aren’t in danger of that at present - but a couple of years of mediocrity would see to that.
It wasn’t Murdoch’s fault. It’s not like he cut back on payroll or anything. The Dodgers were spending more than ever under his watch. Unfortunately, their signing didn’t work out as planned.
Whiney ManU fans are just pissed their team didn’t get bought by Abramovich, who is spending money hand over fist on Arsenal. ManU was the biggest spending and winning club in England for a long time and now that the new owner isn’t willing to lose his shirt keeping up with the Jones’, they’re acting like the end of the world is nigh. Forgive me if I don’t have sympathy.
Good point. Let’s figure out a way to get Glazer to give back ManU if Fox will divest itself of all US journalism channels (but they can keep Fox Soccer Channel). I know Murduck is an Aussie but their still part of the Commonwealth, right?
Also, didn’t Murdoch fancy buying ManU a few years back but was unable to pull it off?
If that’s the case, then using Murdoch as an example of Glazer’s actions is not relevent. There is no way Glazer can afford to spend much at all (in the next couple of years anyway). Transfer and contract spending is likely to go way down.
Current math says the Man U will have to pretty much triple is Profits from 30MM to 90MM just to make debt payments. No way Glazer can do that and buy/sign good players. The TV contract doesn’t expire until 2007, and raising ticket prices won’t cover that gap all by itself.
True, it is better to run a business on debt, but not when profits are a third of your minimum debt payment. Every year you just lose more and more money.
Where’s the logic in that? They want to support ‘their’ club, not a local club. And I’d be very suprised if Bury’s playing staff could be described as ‘local’.
The difference, however, is that Arsenal will receive a benefit from that debt - ie. a brand new stadium, increased capacity = increased revenues, etc. I’ve repeatedly asked people in this thread to propose what benefit United will receive from Glazer’s debt and no-one has come up with anything yet.
Considering that earlier in the thread I was clalled a twat for suggesting that there is some anti-American sentiment fueling the protests I present this article from the L.A Times.
In general you don’t give a fuck about football. The man himself has admitted to have no real knowledge of it himself.
How many people have you heard talking about this IRL? I’ve heard countless ones over the last week. Half the pub was talking about it last night. It’s headline news here. Everytime Man U play pubs are full of wankers in their red shirts screaming at the TV. The US isn’t a footballing nation. Ireland, Germany and the rest of Europe are.
I swear to fuck for the strongest nation in the world you sure do have a severe inferiority complex going on. A lot of you seem to be constantly looking out for the smallest slight that you can call Anti-American. You can then relax and not have to do any more work caring about any form of criticism as it’s only plain ignorant prejudice after all. Hey, maybe we’re jealous as well. Yeah that’s the ticket.
Are you aware of what the attitudes of Manchester United fans were to takeover bids by Robert Maxwell, by Rupert Murdoch or by John Magnier/JP McManus? None of those are American which seems to disprove the views of the guy quoted.
Actually my main point is not this anti-Ameircan thing, but I do want to defend myself from what others have insisted is a stupid and ridiculous position. We may all be wrong, but I am hardly the first to have considerd it.
My main point is that they are going on and on and on, wanting to strart FC United or somthing, etc. Complete mania in my mind. Like this quote from the L.A. Times article makes no sense to me:
What? Why? I just don’t get that attitude. It’s this “we’ll ruin the team before he does” attitude that makes them look like nuts.
Well, the last column I posted was an English website and source. We get that they are passionate, that doensn’t mean we don’t consider that they are acting like complete prats.
That article is a perfect example of somebody who doesn’t see the economic implications of the takeover. “Rich man run club = good…because rich man become rich by being clever” is the logic being presented. The fake history is impressive: “Rich individuals or a small coterie of rich people have always run our football clubs”…in the words of many teachers, could you show your working please?