| Author |
Message |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:07:54 +0100, Peter Duncanson
<mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
That's the difference with Glazer. He cares not a jot for football and, if
you listen to those in Tampa Bay, cares little more for the American version
either.
|
That's a big "So what?" here. Owners here are not criticized for not
being a fan of the sport. They are criticized for interfering with
the sport. George Steinbrenner is hated by most because he
interferes. No one really knows or cares if he enjoys watching
baseball.
| Quote: | He's in sport not for the love, nor the glory, but for the money... pure and
simple. Plunging himself into debt, losses he has now saddled United with,
Glazer's sole goal is to make that money back, and then some more. And who's
going to pay for this little venture? No-one else but the fans.
|
Nonsense, in my opinion. Ticket prices will rise over time just as
the price of a movie ticket has risen over time. The real revenue
will come from corporate sponsorship, television rights, merchandizing
profits, and advertising revenue. Some of what I've just said will
be wrong because "we don't do it that way in the UK", but that may be
only temporary.
| Quote: | But what if he brings success? What if his high risk strategy pays off?
Well, frankly, for real United fans that isn't even close to the primary
issue.
|
Yes, I agree. It's different, and different is wrong.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Graeme Thomas
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 10:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
In article <MPG.1cf5124bc33d261d9899bd@news.ntlworld.com>, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@gmail.com> writes
| 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?
|
The other day I spoke to a friend about this. He said that, until
recently, most county cricket clubs were unincorporated members' clubs,
with no particular owners. In recent years, though, they've started to
convert to plc status. He was speaking in particular about his own
club, the MCC, but he thought that the same applied to the other county
clubs.
(They do things oddly at the MCC. I have been invited, by my friend, to
attend the opening day's play of the England/Bangladesh Test at Lord's
next week. For reasons beyond my ken the invitation will actually come
from the ECB[1]. This is a Good Thing, as that means that the
invitation also include access to the facilities of the ECB hospitality
marquee.)
[1] The ECB is the England and Wales Cricket Board. It is one of the
few known cases of the Welsh being silent.
--
Graeme Thomas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 10:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:48:42 GMT, the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper spake thusly:
It's been said here that ManU fans are calling him the "Hitler of
Manchester". A very unkind remark about a Jewish businessman.
|
An inappropriate remark in most circumstances, anyway.
| Quote: | 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'm reminded about the fuss over the Labour poster showing Michael Howard
and Oliver Letwin as pigs.
Or, perhaps, the brouhaha over a remark by Ken "I'm an iconoclast so I'm
allowed to be offensive" Livingston to a journalist who happened to be
Jewish.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:10:22 GMT, Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:07:54 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
That's the difference with Glazer. He cares not a jot for football and, if
you listen to those in Tampa Bay, cares little more for the American version
either.
That's a big "So what?" here. Owners here are not criticized for not
being a fan of the sport. They are criticized for interfering with
the sport. George Steinbrenner is hated by most because he
interferes. No one really knows or cares if he enjoys watching
baseball.
He's in sport not for the love, nor the glory, but for the money... pure and
simple. Plunging himself into debt, losses he has now saddled United with,
Glazer's sole goal is to make that money back, and then some more. And who's
going to pay for this little venture? No-one else but the fans.
Nonsense, in my opinion. Ticket prices will rise over time just as
the price of a movie ticket has risen over time. The real revenue
will come from corporate sponsorship, television rights, merchandizing
profits, and advertising revenue. Some of what I've just said will
be wrong because "we don't do it that way in the UK", but that may be
only temporary.
I am not a supporter of Man U, or indeed a soccer fan. I look at this fuss |
as a mildly interested outside observer.
As I understand the situation very substantial revenue already comes from
corporate sponsorship, television rights, merchandizing profits, and
advertising. Glazer will need to increase this revenue - quickly.
From the Sunday Times (May 15, 2005)
<quote>
Gambling all on red
....
The debt element in the £790m takeover means the Glazers must increase
United’s average annual profit by at least £20m just to pay off the interest
on their £540m loan. To start paying off that amount and then begin to make
money — the whole purpose of their exercise, no matter what Joel Glazer says
about being an “avid fan” — they are looking at increasing profits by £50m-£
70m.
“I’m sceptical, because they’ve got to raise revenues and do it very
quickly,” said Harry Philp, managing of the sports corporate finance
specialists Inner Circle Sports. “It’s not like they’re starting with a
basket case where huge improvements can be made. United, by miles, are
already the best developed football [soccer] business in the world.”
</quote>
| Quote: | But what if he brings success? What if his high risk strategy pays off?
Well, frankly, for real United fans that isn't even close to the primary
issue.
Yes, I agree.
It's different, and different is wrong.
|
I beg to differ.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:21:46 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:10:22 GMT, Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net
wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:07:54 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
That's the difference with Glazer. He cares not a jot for football and, if
you listen to those in Tampa Bay, cares little more for the American version
either.
That's a big "So what?" here. Owners here are not criticized for not
being a fan of the sport. They are criticized for interfering with
the sport. George Steinbrenner is hated by most because he
interferes. No one really knows or cares if he enjoys watching
baseball.
He's in sport not for the love, nor the glory, but for the money... pure and
simple. Plunging himself into debt, losses he has now saddled United with,
Glazer's sole goal is to make that money back, and then some more. And who's
going to pay for this little venture? No-one else but the fans.
Nonsense, in my opinion. Ticket prices will rise over time just as
the price of a movie ticket has risen over time. The real revenue
will come from corporate sponsorship, television rights, merchandizing
profits, and advertising revenue. Some of what I've just said will
be wrong because "we don't do it that way in the UK", but that may be
only temporary.
I am not a supporter of Man U, or indeed a soccer fan. I look at this fuss
as a mildly interested outside observer.
As I understand the situation very substantial revenue already comes from
corporate sponsorship, television rights, merchandizing profits, and
advertising. Glazer will need to increase this revenue - quickly.
From the Sunday Times (May 15, 2005)
quote
Gambling all on red
...
The debt element in the £790m takeover means the Glazers must increase
United’s average annual profit by at least £20m just to pay off the interest
on their £540m loan. To start paying off that amount and then begin to make
money — the whole purpose of their exercise, no matter what Joel Glazer says
about being an “avid fan” — they are looking at increasing profits by £50m-£
70m.
“I’m sceptical, because they’ve got to raise revenues and do it very
quickly,” said Harry Philp, managing of the sports corporate finance
specialists Inner Circle Sports. “It’s not like they’re starting with a
basket case where huge improvements can be made. United, by miles, are
already the best developed football [soccer] business in the world.”
/quote
|
I'm seeing lots of little boxes in your quoted text.
Am I the only one who thinks it economic stupidity to use a business's
assets to fund massive loans to purchase said business, or is my naivety
preventing my becoming a successful multi-millionaire? It certainly seems
like madness in the case of a football club, it's not like they can open
more branches (unless I'm being woefully unimaginative).
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:04:36 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
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.
Glazer is so low-profile here that most people don't even recognize |
the name, and many that do think of it as "Glazier".
From an article about him:
"A resident of Palm Beach, Florida, Malcolm Glazer was born in
Rochester, New York. He and his wife, Linda, have six children: Avram,
Kevin, Bryan, Joel, Ed and Darcie."
How many families have a Avram and a Kevin?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:21 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Areff wrote:
| Quote: | "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.
|
Not that this proves anything, but the only Malcolm I know is Jewish.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:07 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:04:36 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
[-]
| Quote: |
"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.
Long form of Mel is it not? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murray Arnow
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:14 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net wrote:
[-]
"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.
Long form of Mel is it not?
|
The long form of Melvin is more likely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:48 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
| Quote: | I would've said that "Malcolm" was Scottish. But is it of Gaelic origin,
or is it another foreign import to go with David, Alexander, and so on[1]?
|
It appears to be native Gaelic, meaning "follower of the Dove [St.
Columba]". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:57 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Areff wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
I would've said that "Malcolm" was Scottish. But is it of Gaelic origin,
or is it another foreign import to go with David, Alexander, and so on[1]?
It appears to be native Gaelic, meaning "follower of the Dove [St.
Columba]".
|
Well, except that it contains an imported name inside it (Columba). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 2:22 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:14:16 GMT, arnow@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
wrote:
| Quote: | rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
Areff <me@privacy.net wrote:
[-]
"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.
Long form of Mel is it not?
The long form of Melvin is more likely.
|
I only did it to annoy *somebody*'s smarter brother, in case he was
listening--unlikely but you never know your luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:03 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:47:47 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
<bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm seeing lots of little boxes in your quoted text.
|
Those will be the stylish quotemarks and apostrophes in the original.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:13 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:03:15 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:47:47 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
I'm seeing lots of little boxes in your quoted text.
Those will be the stylish quotemarks and apostrophes in the original.
|
Glad it wasn't just the drugs, then; strange dreams of Australian
supermarkets and waking up paranoid are bad enough...
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:18 am
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:47:47 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
<bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Am I the only one who thinks it economic stupidity to use a business's
assets to fund massive loans to purchase said business, or is my naivety
preventing my becoming a successful multi-millionaire? It certainly seems
like madness in the case of a football club, it's not like they can open
more branches (unless I'm being woefully unimaginative).
|
Opening more branches is an interesting idea. They could start a "Manchester
United" in each soccer-playing country in the world. This could develop into
the Manchester United International Championship in which only MU teams
play. The Glazers are probably not ready for that sort of investment - they
need income.
The article I quoted from has a couple of paragraphs on how extra revenue
could be found:
<quote>
Glazer wants United to have an individual television deal, as Italian clubs
do, but the Premier League’s constitution and the prevailing mood of EU
regulators mean this would be difficult “without going to war with every
other club in England”, said Frank Dunne, contributor to and former editor
of the European industry bible TV Sports Markets.
Getting extra money out of Champions League coverage is bound by similar
problems, but the prize the Glazers may have spotted is United’s
international television rights and the possibility of cutting their own
deal for overseas games. The Glazers will push United heavily overseas,
especially in Asia and the US, and see huge growth prospects for MUTV, which
has only 90,000 subscribers but is watched worldwide by up to 30m. If United
gain the right to screen their games live overseas, it would be a big
attraction with which to sell the channel.
</quote>
(MUTV is a TV channel available on Satellite - Sky, and cable - NTL and
Telewest.)
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in