h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Now that Glazer has 75% of the shares, and can apparently take the club off the Stock Exchange, what will happen to the club, and does anyone really care?.

Maybe this is a case that demonstrates Football Clubs should be about football - not ££££'s

Novo

Don't care about football at all - in fact loathe it.

What I find amazing in all this is that anyone who can get 75% of the shares in a company can transfer the debts they have run up in getting the 75% onto the comapany, so I could do the same if I could borrow multi millions of quid.

CHawke

And yet another example of where the news/meda reporting on it is far above and beyond the covverage it should have gotten: not everyone is interested in football, this storey had a very* limited lifespan, but its coverage, certainly on radio news has been rediculus in comparason to the importance of the sotrey.... Almost as bad as the over covverage of the Popes illness.... the popes death.... the popes election.... I thin ksometimes the Beeb and other news agencies), get the level of coverage they give news items very badly rong, and both of these and espcially* the Man United thing is prime example...

I find it quite ironic that the fan shareholders are now trying to to keep the club which is a public company(I think someone had better explain what shares mean to these dimwits) out of Glazers hands by trying to buy enough shares to freeze him out i.e. playing the stockmarket just like Glazer.

Man U has been a business for years as has football in general. The fans haven't moaned about the multi-million pound transfers and seeing there hard-earned cash and season tickets being used for a bunch of over-paid kids kicking a ball around. They are getting what they deserve that's business.

I put up the first post with tongue in cheek , but also to see how many posters share my own opinion!

I dislike football, and always have ...

I think that in recent years it has become -

Over hyped, over paid, self important, media'd to death, and the players are largely skilled at kicking a ball or spitting ,and not much else.

I cannot conceive of anything less interesting than footballers lives , or even the lives of footballers wives!

Long Live Man City,

Novo

Hear, hear, on all of that.

I'm also puzzled how he can redirect his personal debt on the company. At least the interest payments on that debt have precedent on his dividends as a shareholder.

The coverage is indeed very skewed, but isn't it always that way in the entertainment industry? Just too bad the serious media are playing along with it on this subject.

"-- Who cares?"

Not I.


Put's it down to being another 'no news day' why else would there be so much coverage of a corporate getting on with the logical progression of it's bussiness.


Suppose it beats the usual subjects of 'media on hold with a story' routine. that's not quite happened yet... Royal's/Pope/Petrol/Headless chicken party/Middle East/Discovery of Hospital having sick people in them, and so on.

Well:

More overpriced merchandise will be sold.
More ridiculously high wages will be paid out.
Ticket prices will go even higher.

All that would have happened anyway really.

Meanwhile, I will remain blissfully unaware of actual football clubs and continue to enjoy playing on the downs.

I concur. I'm sure that the dedicated followers of Man. Utd. sincerely believe that Glazer will be bad for the club. However the historical record of his business acumen would suggest otherwise.

I am not in the least interested or concerned even though I originated from Manchester and once counted myself as a supporter. I no longer have any interest in football.

On the point of loading his personal debts onto the club this is not so. He has raised capital against the future acquisition of the club on the basis that it is proven to be extremely profitable and is likely to continue to be. This capital only becomes a debt once he acquires the club and by virtue of the fact that it is now his (in the sense that he is a company in law) the debt is set against the club (an asset).

turvy

Whats utd on about ,there are poor clubs out there that would be glad of his money.

But the club isn't getting his money, the shareholders are.

As I said last week it's wonderful that the financial pigeons have come home to roost or roast unquote.

What will be interesting to watch is the knock on effect on the TV coverage and hence the ammonut of money washing around the Premiership. If Glazer pulls Manchester out of Premiership negotiated coverage TV companies wont be so interested. Maybe this is the start of the house of cards tumbling.

There's something deeply disturbing seeing Wayne Rooney driving a Bentley.

I am laughing and laughing and about all this
I have long long long moaned and complained about the fact that football clubs have been Plcs, and now the fans, who thought it a good idea at first (of the successful ones, at any rate) now see what it means.

I have advice for the fans who now believe that the ticket prices etc will go through the roof: vote with your wallets. Hang on to your shares, they will be worth money (Glazer is a good businessman) but don't go to the matches, and don't watch ManUtd tv.

Once that revenue falls off, it will be time to sell the club.

And yes, there is a lot of Schadenfreude involved. I have been lamenting the way that the disproportionate way money washes around the football league(s) has affected (adversely, mostly) the smaller clubs.

On the other hand, each time one nearly goes to the wall, and is saved for sentimental reasons (Leeds Utd, anyone?) I grumble that they should be treated like proper companies.

I don't care anyway. My lot are in the playoffs to get into the Championship. All this money stuff is way out of our league. (Sheffield Wednesday, for anyone who is interested. Stop laughing at the back)

I don't care about this at all, the death of football (as some people are calling it) is long overdue in my opinion... if Man U is so determined to act like a mega-corporation I see no reason why it shouldn't be owned like one.

Right well I have a couple of points.

Firstly on the "newsworthy" aspect of the story; like it or lump it Football is the national game. And for a good half of the population at that too. Perhaps for many of them (read "ferrettbadger") it borders on obssesion.

United are the most popular club in the country and *the world*. So the fate of them is something that is hugely important to lots of people. If that isn't news then I dont know what is.

Secondly I had major concerns that there would be a potential "knock on effect" on foorball if Glazer abolished the collective bargaining rights of the Premier League, however reading what Richard Scudamore (the chairman of the PL) says my fears have been allayed slightly.

So this leaves me free to be absolutly ecstatic at the news. The club I *hate* most in the world has just been saddled with half a billion pounds worth of debt. Glazer was so desparate to raise the funds some of the bonds are high interest upwards of 10%. Interest payments alone are oging to be 50 million a year.

Whilst Glazer is obviously convinced he can raise extra revenue it hardly looks like in the short term at least they will be able to compete with the big boys. Anyone who has followed the PL this season will know they wer light years behind Chelski and winning the Champions League.

I look forward to a number of years of continuing mediocracy from United. Class.

Any other club and I would be feeling for the fans, but United have milked the advantages of being a successful PLC for years, no charity toward football at all. When their Chairman said last year he thought football could stand to loose 40 proffesional clubs in the uk sealed their fate as the most hated club in the UK.

Man U you reap what you sow.

Right well I have a couple of points.

Firstly on the "newsworthy" aspect of the story; like it or lump it Football is the national game. And for a good half of the population at that too. Perhaps for many of them (read "ferrettbadger") it borders on obssesion.

United are the most popular club in the country and *the world*. So the fate of them is something that is hugely important to lots of people. If that isn't news then I dont know what is.

Secondly I had major concerns that there would be a potential "knock on effect" on foorball if Glazer abolished the collective bargaining rights of the Premier League, however reading what Richard Scudamore (the chairman of the PL) says my fears have been allayed slightly.

So this leaves me free to be absolutly ecstatic at the news. The club I *hate* most in the world has just been saddled with half a billion pounds worth of debt. Glazer was so desparate to raise the funds some of the bonds are high interest upwards of 10%. Interest payments alone are oging to be 50 million a year.

Whilst Glazer is obviously convinced he can raise extra revenue it hardly looks like in the short term at least they will be able to compete with the big boys. Anyone who has followed the PL this season will know they wer light years behind Chelski and winning the Champions League.

I look forward to a number of years of continuing mediocracy from United. Class.

Any other club and I would be feeling for the fans, but United have milked the advantages of being a successful PLC for years, no charity toward football at all. When their Chairman said last year he thought football could stand to loose 40 proffesional clubs in the uk sealed their fate as the most hated club in the UK.

Man U you reap what you sow.

For the fans of Manchester United I care not one jot or tittle. They enjoyed the success that went with buying mega-names and pricing other clubs out of the transfer market. But...

I do feel sorry for the clubs in the lower divisions (and let's be honest, this includes all but three or four other Premiership teams as well) who are good and loyal supporters who are going to see their teams standing dwindle and dwindle until everyone of them is playing in the equivalent of the Isthmian League.

I think a lot of people are working on the asumption that it is inevitable that Man U will break or change the collective bargaining TV agreement.

The truth is that any decision will have to be taken by the PL clubs collectivly. Whilst Arsenal, Man U, Chelski, Liverpool and Newcastle might quite fancy this there is no way the smaller clubs are going to go for it.

Why would turkeys vote for Christmas?

Having been a semi-interested observer of Glazer since he bought the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, let me assure you that he is

a) perfectly capable of taking unilateral action on the 'collective bargaining' agrrement and drag it out in the courts, doubtless claiming that is is in breach of his rights to maximise his profits (and under European Law he'd have a great chance at that).

b) perfectly capable of leading a breakaway European Super League. Remember, the Buc's travel up to 5,000 miles for a fixture. The idea of his team flitting to Rome, Barcelona, Munich, maybe even Moscow on a semi-regular basis wouldn't faze him at all. Abramovich could play that game. Not sure Arsenal could tho', and as for the others...

Well we will see.

Football is subject to rules the same as any other profession but still influence is able to be had on this by the ocnventions of football.

See the "transfer window" fudge for this.

I personally do not think for a second as breakaway super league is on the cards or likely. He might well try but I cannot see it happening. The truth is the domestic fans (and it is they who really matter to the pocket) are always more interstedi n the rigours of domestic footy than European.

The Champions league is exciting but it is just not the same as beating a team of whom you know fans.

No proper fans will *ever* care as much about Man U vs Juve in the league as much as Man U vs Liverpool.