- As far as is known, Glazer has never been to Manchester, let alone ever seen Manchester United play.
- Glazer’s PR people say that the family interest in football is mainly held by Glazer’s son Joel. Apparently Joel once shared a flat with a Spurs fan.
- Joel also recently told a Tampa journalist that he was “concerned about United’s midfield”.
- The Glazers nearly bought Major League Soccer franchise Tampa Bay Mutiny in 2001, but apparently the asking price of somewhere north of $5 million was too high. The franchise collapsed soon afterwards and the team no longer exists. Mutiny played at Raymond James Stadium, where the Bucs play, and the Glazers would have controlled 100% of parking, concessions and ticket sales revenue through their ownership of the stadium.
- Three years ago, Glazer attempted to buy the Swiss football club FC Zurich. He told its president, Sven Hotz “When I take over, nobody has a say apart from me”. Herr Hotz politely declined the offer.
- The Glazers have raised ticket prices EVERY year since they have owned the Tamp Bay Buccaneers. Bucs ticket prices, if you include every element of the pricing structure, are now among the highest in the NFL. Their ‘club seats’ season ticket required buyers to commit to TEN years of ownership and anyone who withdraws before the period is up is liable to pay a penalty.
- A US judge reviewing Glazer’s business practices famously branded him "a snake in sheep's clothing."
- Glazer's sister commented, "People in Britain should be very wary of him. I don't think he is fit to own such a famous and historic club as Manchester United. If he gets his hands on it the only one who will benefit is Malcolm.”
- Eric Cantona said, “If he [Glazer] were to come here, we would lose everything.”
- Ole Gunnar Solskjaer declared, “I’m absolutely on the side of the fans who don’t want him at the club. I think United is in very good hands as it is today.”
- Sir Alex Ferguson said, “We don’t want the club to be in anyone else’s hands.”
- "Of course we sympathise with the views of the fans," said Ryan Giggs. "As far as they're concerned, there's nothing wrong with the way the club is being run."
- Rio Ferdinand said, "A lot of people want the club's interest to be with people who have grown up with the club and have got its interests at heart.
- Sir Bobby Charlton said of the Glazer bid: “I can’t say much about that, but what I can say is this – Manchester United is an institution which is protected by its fans and by the Board who have the club’s best interests at heart”.
- Pat Crerand and Sandy Busby, men who understand the true heritage of Manchester United, told Shareholders United, “Your cause is just.”
- UK Sports Minister Richard Caborn said in reply to a parliamentary question from Tony Lloyd MP in January 2005: “I was pleased to read the statement made by the chief executive of Manchester United, David Gill, when he said any decision would be taken reflecting both present shareholders and future shareholders. I think that is important to a club like Manchester United who have a tremendous role to play not just in the game, but in the community as well.”
- Bill Poe, the former mayor of Tampa says Glazer has been a bad owner for the city. He has, he says, “taken every advantage that he could have taken and put very little back in”. Poe is so incensed he has broken a 10-year silence to warn United fans against the Bucs’ boss. “The British government and its citizens have been great allies and friends of America,” said Poe. “I would question whether I would want someone like Glazer representing American business in Britain.”
- Tom Ajamie is a lawyer who worked for the Glazer family for seven years - until they fell out over unpaid fees. He said recently: “He [Glazer] is very aggressive. He will do what he sets out to do. He is determined to take over Manchester United and will continue until he is absolutely defeated. He is hard nosed. On the upside he is orientated towards winning. There is no question about that. But he is very much driven by money and there is no question he will drive up ticket prices. He did it at Tampa Bay and he also extracted very severe concessions from the City of Tampa Bay, tax breaks and other types of monetary concessions. At one point he even threatened to pull the team out of Tampa Bay which was really disheartening for the whole city because they love their football team. He doesn't care whether fans like him or not. I guarantee you that. He will do what he wants to do. Other people's opinions are the last things that concern him."
- Ajamie took Glazer to court but the case was settled before it got to court, with Ajamie receiving 85 cents for every dollar owed. “If he had asked for that discount in the first place, I would have given it to him,” said Ajamie. He said that during his time with the Glazers all serious negotiations took place with Malcolm. Other former advisers said Malcolm preferred to operate behind the scenes and that his sons checked everything they did with their father first.
- Glazer's sister comments about the litigation over their mother’s will: “The family were all so close but he just made mincemeat of them all. He made sure they ended up with virtually nothing. He would rather have spent the money on court fees than give them a cent. It was incredibly mean, but also incredibly sad.”
- Glazer's sister comments "No one he has ever worked with has a good word to say about him. He can appear very charming but it's all a front."
- Brother-in-law Morris Krovetz said: "Malcolm Glazer is not a man - he's an animal. He's done so much damage to the family that it pains me to even mention his name. As far as I'm concerned he no longer exists." Mr Krovetz, who was married to Glazer's sister Evelyn, blames his brother-in-law for destroying his wife's life.
- Marisa Bowe, former editor-in-chief of the pioneering internet magazine Word.com, first met Avram Glazer in 1998 when Zapata bailed out her company. Word was one of 30 websites that Zap bought. 'He was an idiot,' said Bowe, ''and I'm not the sort of person who uses the word idiot lightly.'
- (Sir Bobby Robson in the Mail on Sunday): “Whereas Chelsea welcomed Roman Abramovich because they were skint, Manchester United don’t need Glazer – he needs them. United already spend millions on the best players, such as Rio Ferdinand and Wayne Rooney, and want to expand their capacity to 75,000 to cope with demand from fans.”
- (Bobby Robson again): “It’s not in the best interests of the club to sell out to the man from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. In fact, the people who might benefit most from Glazer taking over are Arsenal and Chelsea, because I’m sure United would lose their position as the No.1 club.”
- (Bobby Robson yet again): “If the shareholders let Glazer take over, will ticket prices go up? Will Old Trafford be renamed or even sold? Anything is possible and that is what’s worrying. United are more than just a football club. They are the football club – to tens of millions in every continent.”
- (More Sir Bobby): “But United don’t need rescuing, Glazer won’t care about the heritage of United, just the bank balance.”
Why Manchester United does not need Glazer….
- Manchester United is a highly successful football club, operating at the pinnacle of
European football. United does not need a new owner to improve its sporting success,
especially one who will load the club with debt in order to acquire it.
- Manchester United is also a successful and profitable company. It is already the No 1 richest sporting club in the world (Deloitte & Touche). It does not need a new owner to maintain and improve its position in this respect.
- Malcolm Glazer is promising to ‘bring success to Manchester United’ – his NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, finished bottom of their league this year and next to bottom the previous year, having won 1 trophy in 8 years under Glazer’s ownership.
- Manchester United is a global name in football and sport – the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is a local franchise and the Glazer family have absolutely no experience of running an international company, let alone a global sports icon such as United.
- Malcolm Glazer’s acquisition of a major shareholding in United has so far contributed absolutely nothing but destabilisation, speculation and distraction to the club. He appears to be content to pursue his aggressive and dangerous business plan with no apparent concern for the effect on the club, the community, the team or the supporters.
- Glazer has actually borrowed to fund his share purchases up to now – some estimate as much as £100 million. So his family foundation is already in debt to the banks before he starts to borrow huge sums to make his bid.
- Manchester United is a debt-free company, with cash in the bank and making substantial profits year on year. Glazer would borrow huge amounts to buy United, turning the club into a debt-laden organisation overnight and requiring at least a doubling of annual profits for the next 5 to 7 years in order to repay debts and give Glazer a return on his “investment”.
- This pressure on the finances of United would result in huge price increases across the board at Old Trafford, the selling of the naming rights to Old Trafford, possible sale & leaseback of the ground, if things did not go well, and generally turning United into a giant cash register for one man’s personal gain.
- In the worst case scenario, United could collapse under the weight of the debt and end up like Leeds United.
- A revised Glazer proposal in February 2005 was based on an alternative debt structure involving preference shares (described in some quarters as “debt in drag”). United’s board declared: “The Board believes that the nature and return requirements of this capital structure will put pressure on the business of Manchester United, particularly if Glazer's business plan was not met. The Board continues to believe that Glazer's business plan assumptions are aggressive and that the direct and indirect financial strain on the business could be damaging.”
- Glazer does not like to be thwarted. When his initial leveraged ‘proposal’ was rejected by the United Board in October 2004, he exacted revenge at United’s AGM. His vote against the re-election of three United directors – legal adviser Maurice Watkins, new commercial director Andy Anson and non-executive director Philip Yea – resulted in them losing their places on the plc board.
- His treatment of Watkins was particularly ruthless, since Watkins had incurred the displeasure of United’s fans and supporter shareholders by offloading shares that were bought by Glazer.
- His stalking of Manchester United fits his past history, say former associates. “He likes to keep people on edge, to keep them guessing,” says one. Others might call it destabilisation, disruption, volatility and continued speculation which makes management of a club that much more difficult.
Why football does not need Malcolm Glazer
- Glazer’s main interest in United seems to be the TV rights and media potential worldwide. It does not take a genius to realise that the break-up of the collective TV Premiership rights would be very profitable for United and the other 2 leading PL clubs Chelsea and Arsenal.
- The need to drive revenues to repay loans taken out to acquire the club could ironically, given the fun that fans of other clubs have had at the expense of United’s, lead to the bankruptcy of their own clubs. In just over 2 years time, when the current TV deal runs out, any PL club with more than £30 million of debt, would face their TV income dropping by up to 80% and probable insolvency. Welcome to the world of Leeds United.
!
