What's your opinion on Glaizer buying out Man UTD? It is my favorite England team, do you think he is another (forgot his nameChelsea owner) ?
here, he has a nice record of bringing a shitty American football team to 1 NFL championship ( the worst team in NFL for 25 some years). Quite different in American team sports as we have the cap limit( you can only spend a certain amount, so star's always move to where the money is, unless they are highly loyal).
It's highly mixed for me, after all I want the best for Man UTD, seeing Arsenal and chelsa do so good in the EPL.
Chelsea chairman Roman Abramovich used his own money to buy the club and clear all it's debts. He attends a lot of matches and looks like he is a genuine football fan.
Glazer is going to borrow hundreds of millions to finance his takeover of Man Utd and will pass that debt onto the club. He has never set foot in Old Trafford.
Bob is correct.
Among Utd fans, the facts are seen to be thus:
He bought Tampa, put prices up, blackmailed the city into building a new stadium for them, changed the team's colours, and sacked the head coach, replacing him with someone who, although winning the Super Bowl in year one (with the team that the previous guy put together), has had a losing record three years running since. Meanwhile the guy he sacked has done well elsewhere.
He has previously been laughed out of court by a US judge for a forlorn attempt to buy Harley Davidson.
He has no money with which to fund this takeover - the first 30% that he bought was with a lot of debt, he now has borrowed a further £500 Million, half of which is secured against the club itself, ie the FULLY PAID FOR stadium, the FULLY PAID FOR training facilities, the FULLY PAID FOR land.
The interest on this loan is likely to be around £40 Million a year. The company (which according to the stock exchange AND the PR spin coming from the Glazers is "extremely well run") makes around £20 Million a year. NOBODY, not the current board, not the fans, not the press and not even INDEPENDENT financial observers can see any way of getting profits anywhere near that level. And this is before any capital repayments can be made to actually pay off the loan.
The only foreseen way of getting extra profit is to break the current TV agreement which gives equal funds to all Premier League teams from TV income. In order to achieve this Glazer will either need 14 other PL clubs to agree to it (highly unlikely as it would result in most of them getting less money as a result), or take the PL to court (which would turn the rest of the PL against him - not exactly a sensible long term strategy).
In addition to this, Shareholders United have around 30,000 members, all both shareholders and the "brand's" most loyal "customers" - These are those most opposed and whose absence will be most obvious. At a time when the stadium is being extended further, gaps will be both hugely embarrassing and deeply financially damaging.
In short, no, he's nothing like Abramovich, and any promises he makes will be paid for by the punters on the gate. He's out of touch as exemplified by:
1. Offering £20 Million a year transfer funds & believing that will sweeten the deal. For a start, the fans will be paying for it anyway, for another, we've already spent more than that on single players 4 times, the market is more expensive than that.
2. Putting a bid in on February 6th.
3. One of the directors likely to be sacked this week is a former player called Bobby Charlton.