| Author |
Message |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:13:39 +0100, Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:26:31 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
Well, we all know that sports fans are weird, but British ones are
weird in slightly different ways. British sports teams traditionally
do not have "owners" as American ones do, and the fans like to regard
them as "theirs". In fact Manchester United has been a publicly quoted
company for years, and lots of fans own shares. But the main
qualification for being involved is to care in the way that fans care,
and the assumption is that Glazer doesn't. It will pass, I suspect.
Much the same feelings were expressed when a Russian bought a
controlling interest in Chelsea a while ago, but all he needed to do
was turn up at some games and act emotional, and he became one of the
lads. I presume Glazer has enough sense to do that, too.
|
Actually, Glazer is known for the opposite. He's very reclusive and
keeps himself out of sight. I know a guy that worked for one of
Glazer's televisions stations who told me that Glazer made a brief
appearance at the Christmas party once a year and was never seen in
between. He hires people to run things, and lets them do it.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:26:31 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
|
Well, we all know that sports fans are weird, but British ones are
weird in slightly different ways. British sports teams traditionally
do not have "owners" as American ones do, and the fans like to regard
them as "theirs". In fact Manchester United has been a publicly quoted
company for years, and lots of fans own shares. But the main
qualification for being involved is to care in the way that fans care,
and the assumption is that Glazer doesn't. It will pass, I suspect.
Much the same feelings were expressed when a Russian bought a
controlling interest in Chelsea a while ago, but all he needed to do
was turn up at some games and act emotional, and he became one of the
lads. I presume Glazer has enough sense to do that, too.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Will
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan
about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
|
It is of absolutely no concern to me. The vast majority of Manchester
United fans probably live in The People's Republic of China anyway, and
I doubt they care either.
For my part, I only ever had a very lukewarm interest in football (AmE
"soccer") and this has waned in direct proportion to the growth in
media coverage, players' salaries usw. I now heartily wish the whole
shooting match would kindly fuck off to Antarctica to amuse the
penguins.
Will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:26:31 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrought:
| Quote: | The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
|
Because Glazer and son now control enough shares to take it off the
stock market and own the club as their private plaything. This is, of
course, nothing new. Before it was a public company, United was owned
by the Edwards family, whose patriarch -- Louis -- was a notoriously
shady character who made his fortune out of wholesale butchery
(literally and figuratively -- he hacked his way through the other
shareholders to gain control of the club). When he died, the club was
inherited by his son, Martin, who floated it on the stock exchange,
took the money and ran.
So what's all the fuss about if this isn't the first time the club has
been in the hands of a cynical rapacious speculating bastard? It's
simple. The Edwards family were *Mancunian* cynical rapacious
speculating bastards.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:13:39 +0100, Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com
wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:26:31 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
Well, we all know that sports fans are weird, but British ones are
weird in slightly different ways. British sports teams traditionally
do not have "owners" as American ones do, and the fans like to regard
them as "theirs". In fact Manchester United has been a publicly quoted
company for years, and lots of fans own shares. But the main
qualification for being involved is to care in the way that fans care,
and the assumption is that Glazer doesn't. It will pass, I suspect.
Much the same feelings were expressed when a Russian bought a
controlling interest in Chelsea a while ago, but all he needed to do
was turn up at some games and act emotional, and he became one of the
lads. I presume Glazer has enough sense to do that, too.
|
Although I have absolutely no interest in football, I was surprised
when I first heard of somebody "buying" a club. It hadn't occurred
to me that they might be owned. What about cricket clubs? Who owns
Lancashire, down the road from United?
| Quote: | Actually, Glazer is known for the opposite. He's very reclusive and
keeps himself out of sight. I know a guy that worked for one of
Glazer's televisions stations who told me that Glazer made a brief
appearance at the Christmas party once a year and was never seen in
between. He hires people to run things, and lets them do it.
|
He was foolish to admit that he had never been to Manchester, which
makes him look like an investor with no interest in football, or in
United. Also, he has added the loans which he needed to buy the
shares into the club's balance sheet. This has turned the mighty
cash-rich United into a club with hundreds of millions of pounds of
debt, which is likely to put up ticket prices. That is not the
action of a fan, but of a hard-nosed business man. The fans don't
like that. The fact that he's American is of no particular
importance - he would be hated if he was a local.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:49:47 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com>
wrought:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper spake thusly:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:13:39 +0100, Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com
wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:26:31 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
Well, we all know that sports fans are weird, but British ones are
weird in slightly different ways. British sports teams traditionally
do not have "owners" as American ones do, and the fans like to regard
them as "theirs". In fact Manchester United has been a publicly quoted
company for years, and lots of fans own shares. But the main
qualification for being involved is to care in the way that fans care,
and the assumption is that Glazer doesn't. It will pass, I suspect.
Much the same feelings were expressed when a Russian bought a
controlling interest in Chelsea a while ago, but all he needed to do
was turn up at some games and act emotional, and he became one of the
lads. I presume Glazer has enough sense to do that, too.
Although I have absolutely no interest in football, I was surprised
when I first heard of somebody "buying" a club. It hadn't occurred
to me that they might be owned. What about cricket clubs? Who owns
Lancashire, down the road from United?
Actually, Glazer is known for the opposite. He's very reclusive and
keeps himself out of sight. I know a guy that worked for one of
Glazer's televisions stations who told me that Glazer made a brief
appearance at the Christmas party once a year and was never seen in
between. He hires people to run things, and lets them do it.
He was foolish to admit that he had never been to Manchester, which
makes him look like an investor with no interest in football, or in
United. Also, he has added the loans which he needed to buy the
shares into the club's balance sheet. This has turned the mighty
cash-rich United into a club with hundreds of millions of pounds of
debt, which is likely to put up ticket prices. That is not the
action of a fan, but of a hard-nosed business man. The fans don't
like that. The fact that he's American is of no particular
importance - he would be hated if he was a local.
|
He was hated before the details of the loan came to light, though. In
some of the comments I've seen from the fans I do sense quite a bit of
extreme mancunocentricuty (which is a perhaps a bit strange when
we're talking about a club whose greatest successes have come thanks
to the boots of a string of Scots, Irishmen and a Frog).
But the previous Big Bad Owner of the club, Louis Edwards, was never
hated, even though his business practices were widely known to be
little short of organised crime. He wasn't hated because he had, and
cannily played, an ace up his sleeve: he was a flash, brash Mancunian
and a diehard United fan. It was that fandom that got "Champagne
Louis" a place on the board and, once he was Chairman, it was that
fandom that motivated him to say "yes" to almost anything Matt Busby
asked for. That "anything" included the arrival of the still-King of
Old Trafford, Denis Law, who was brought from Italy for a then-record
transfer fee. So I disagree with you about Glazer's nationality not
being an issue, David. As I said in my reply to TC, in the fans' eyes,
Louis Edwards, despite all his faults (and whatever was in those meat
pies), was "wan of uz". And Glazer isn't.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Ross Howard spake thusly:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:49:47 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrought:
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:13:39 +0100, Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com
wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:26:31 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
Well, we all know that sports fans are weird, but British ones are
weird in slightly different ways. British sports teams traditionally
do not have "owners" as American ones do, and the fans like to regard
them as "theirs". In fact Manchester United has been a publicly quoted
company for years, and lots of fans own shares. But the main
qualification for being involved is to care in the way that fans care,
and the assumption is that Glazer doesn't. It will pass, I suspect.
Much the same feelings were expressed when a Russian bought a
controlling interest in Chelsea a while ago, but all he needed to do
was turn up at some games and act emotional, and he became one of the
lads. I presume Glazer has enough sense to do that, too.
Although I have absolutely no interest in football, I was surprised
when I first heard of somebody "buying" a club. It hadn't occurred
to me that they might be owned. What about cricket clubs? Who owns
Lancashire, down the road from United?
Actually, Glazer is known for the opposite. He's very reclusive and
keeps himself out of sight. I know a guy that worked for one of
Glazer's televisions stations who told me that Glazer made a brief
appearance at the Christmas party once a year and was never seen in
between. He hires people to run things, and lets them do it.
He was foolish to admit that he had never been to Manchester, which
makes him look like an investor with no interest in football, or in
United. Also, he has added the loans which he needed to buy the
shares into the club's balance sheet. This has turned the mighty
cash-rich United into a club with hundreds of millions of pounds of
debt, which is likely to put up ticket prices. That is not the
action of a fan, but of a hard-nosed business man. The fans don't
like that. The fact that he's American is of no particular
importance - he would be hated if he was a local.
He was hated before the details of the loan came to light, though. In
some of the comments I've seen from the fans I do sense quite a bit of
extreme mancunocentricuty (which is a perhaps a bit strange when
we're talking about a club whose greatest successes have come thanks
to the boots of a string of Scots, Irishmen and a Frog).
But the previous Big Bad Owner of the club, Louis Edwards, was never
hated, even though his business practices were widely known to be
little short of organised crime.
|
I used to buy meat from one of his shops in Moss Side.
| Quote: | He wasn't hated because he had, and
cannily played, an ace up his sleeve: he was a flash, brash Mancunian
and a diehard United fan. It was that fandom that got "Champagne
Louis" a place on the board and, once he was Chairman, it was that
fandom that motivated him to say "yes" to almost anything Matt Busby
asked for. That "anything" included the arrival of the still-King of
Old Trafford, Denis Law, who was brought from Italy for a then-record
transfer fee. So I disagree with you about Glazer's nationality not
being an issue, David. As I said in my reply to TC, in the fans' eyes,
Louis Edwards, despite all his faults (and whatever was in those meat
pies), was "wan of uz". And Glazer isn't.
|
Actually, I don't think we disagree - he's hated because he's not a
die-hard United fan. Not because he's an American. They would hate
me in the same way, since I've never been to a league football match
and have no interest whatsoever in football. If I were to buy a
football club, it would be for investment purposes only.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mickwick
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, Will wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | For my part, I only ever had a very lukewarm interest in football (AmE
"soccer") and this has waned in direct proportion to the growth in
media coverage, players' salaries usw.
|
AOL. My interest has gradually waned since Sky took it over. I can
hardly be bothered to watch internationals these days.
| Quote: | I now heartily wish the whole shooting match would kindly fuck off to
Antarctica to amuse the penguins.
|
Er, Krill Waddle? No. Maybe not.
--
Mickwick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Although I have absolutely no interest in football, I was surprised
when I first heard of somebody "buying" a club. It hadn't occurred
to me that they might be owned. What about cricket clubs? Who
owns
Lancashire, down the road from United?
[...] |
This is a subject of permanent niggling concern to me. I may even
have asked about it in aue at some time. Along with the craze for
ferocious-asset-stripping, there was a government-led fashion for
"de-mutualization" in the Thatcher years, the underlying philosophy
being that anything which could be run for private profit should be.
Traditional British compromise organizations such as the Trustee
Savings Bank, owned by the depositors and managed by trustees,
suddenly became ordinary commercial companies.
The next thing I noticed was that football "clubs" were apparently
private property, when I'd unthinkingly assumed they were membership
organisations of some kind, as the name suggested. I then panicked
about village cricket clubs and all sorts of other groups, and never
found out what the legal position was: is any club vulnerable to
commercial takeover, or is there some category a club can belong to
which will protect it?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:01:23 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
[...]
Although I have absolutely no interest in football, I was surprised
when I first heard of somebody "buying" a club. It hadn't occurred
to me that they might be owned. What about cricket clubs? Who
owns
Lancashire, down the road from United?
[...]
This is a subject of permanent niggling concern to me. I may even
have asked about it in aue at some time. Along with the craze for
ferocious-asset-stripping, there was a government-led fashion for
"de-mutualization" in the Thatcher years, the underlying philosophy
being that anything which could be run for private profit should be.
Traditional British compromise organizations such as the Trustee
Savings Bank, owned by the depositors and managed by trustees,
suddenly became ordinary commercial companies.
The next thing I noticed was that football "clubs" were apparently
private property, when I'd unthinkingly assumed they were membership
organisations of some kind, as the name suggested. I then panicked
about village cricket clubs and all sorts of other groups, and never
found out what the legal position was: is any club vulnerable to
commercial takeover, or is there some category a club can belong to
which will protect it?
|
One which has no potential to generate profit, Mike. I don't see
investors queuing up to buy Broadbottom Cricket Club...
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:48:42 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
It's been said here that ManU fans are calling him the "Hitler of
Manchester". A very unkind remark about a Jewish businessman.
It is, but I doubt they know he's Jewish. I didn't. It's not
something which would normally be mentioned here. I sometimes
discover that well-know people are Jewish, decades after I first
encountered them in the media. There are undoubtedly many more that
I haven't discovered. It's not normally a subject of discussion, any
more than being a Catholic would be.
I didn't know it either until the media reported the Hitler comments
and brought up the fact that Glazer is Jewish. Had the Hitler
comments not surfaced, the religion would not have been known.
It is the opposite of Godwin's Law.
|
"Glazer" is a pretty common Ashkenazic Jewish surname here in the US, at
least where such surnames themselves are common (e.g., not in Seattle)
but I wouldn't think of "Malcolm" as being a particularly common
forename among American Jews for whatever generation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | The local sports pages have compared the mood in Manchester in regard
to Malcolm Glazer to be much the same as the mood in Afghanistan about
American prison guards.
I really can't figure out why. Is it because an American now owns
controlling interest in a British institution, or because Glazer
himself is disliked? I can't figure out why either would be of
concern.
|
I don't think there's any feeling about Glazer himself or the fact that
he's an American. What's detested and feared is the idea that the club
will be solely in private hands, without the <hollow laugh> restraints
of the market. That means Glazer can make his decisions about the club's
future without having to pay attention to any of the traditional
stakeholders. Now, that's not actually a desperately new thing, but it's
the first time such power has been so concentrated. Even Louis "Don
Salfordeone" Edwards had to jolly the fans along.
The first expectation is that season ticket prices will increase
astronomically, the second that merchandise prices will ditto. The next
concern is that Glazer will insist on negotiating TV rights separately
for Man U where the club currently participates in the Premiership
negotiations with the other clubs. And if he doesn't get what he wants
here, the possibility looms that he will use Man U as the centrepiece of
some new arrangement - a European super league for example.
Now, all of this might have happened without Glazer, but the fact that
he can return the club to private ownership gives him greater leverage
than anyone else would have had. Even the Coolmore Mafia kept their
heads down, apart from giving Alex Ferguson the occasional slap.
Man U is already a global institution and, by expert accounts, has yet
to realise its full money-making potential outside the UK, especially in
the Far East. But it has toeholds elsewhere and a good businessman will
know how to exploit them. The club also has a global fan base, subject
of many a joke in footballing circles. But the fans in Manchester are
the remnant of that kind of people who followed football clubs because
it was in their blood, not because the club was glamourous or successful
(or both). They feel betrayed. They have been betrayed, of course, but
the betrayal started long before Malcolm Glazer cast his beady eye on
the place. This is just, as they seem to realise, the last ditch in
which they could offer to die.
NB, I see in the meeja that Glazer and his sons are describing
themselves as "lifelong Man U fans". That idea, knock on the head.
Otherwise when the Glazier offspring turn up to run the show they're
going to find themselves seriously embarrassed in a Press Conference
being asked to show their knowledge of the club. I am a City fan, not
United (not having been to a pro match for 50 years has nothing to do
with this - in Manchester you choose early and stay with your choice)
but even I could answer the kind of stuff that will be used to show that
they'd never heard of Man U until a few years ago - like "What position
did Alex Stepney play?", "Why was the sale of Denis Law so
controversial?" or kiddy stuff like "Which Babes survived Munich?"
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frances Kemmish
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Django Cat wrote:
| Quote: |
One which has no potential to generate profit, Mike. I don't see
investors queuing up to buy Broadbottom Cricket Club...
|
I think that's a failure of the marketing strategy. The name alone
should bring in a few bucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Barnes
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 6:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, Django Cat wrote:
| Quote: | I don't see investors queuing up to buy Broadbottom Cricket Club...
|
That could be because they can't find it. The signposts to Broadbottom
aren't exactly prominent. I suspect the authorities are trying to
discourage casual corner-cutting (witness also the 20 mph limit).
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in