Regulars
Vivid POSTCARDS
Postcard from London

by Duncan Leigh
June/July 2005

Greetings from chilly London where the talk of the day is all about goings on in the North West.

In a sport and scandal obsessed country like England we like nothing better than building something up only to knock it down ferociously when the opportunity arises. In this case the edifice is Manchester United, an object of either love if, like me, you are a Manchester boy, or hatred, if you are either from the wrong side of the tracks in Manchester or else one of the many “ABUs” – Anyone But United – in the rest of the country.

The news that the long-presaged hostile takeover bid of American Malcolm Glazer has finally not just materialised but is now virtually completed has led to delight in many corners of the capital and despair among proper Manchester United fans everywhere.

But why? On the face of it we have a fabulously wealthy entrepreneur taking over ownership of a football club. “Surely that’s a good thing?” I hear from Chelsea fans. Well, not exactly, no. Firstly, Malcolm Glazer is no Roman Abramovich and secondly Manchester United is not Chelsea.

The Glazers claim to be “massive” Manchester United fans. Not one of these multi-millionaire “fans” has ever been to Old Trafford in his life. Love him or despise him, Abramovich goes to every Chelsea game. While Abramovich’s fortune runs to billions, and he has to date put hundreds of millions of this into Chelsea, Glazer is not in the same league. Rich, yes, but “only” to the tune of a few hundred million dollars, and the funds needed to buy the club for about £800 million will largely be borrowed from City of London institutions. Even at a rate of six per cent, the formerly debt-free club will be paying out close to £50 million a year in interest or dividends that it can ill afford. Where is the £50 million a year coming from? The supporters, either by way of increased ticket prices, or else from a yet to be negotiated pay per view TV deal which will take Manchester United out of the current collective Premiership contract in which all 20 top tier teams participate. This means Glazer is not just planning to take money off United fans but also to take it off other clubs; United is still one of the major draws for the television audience and if it walked away from the collective contract, then the contract would become significantly less attractive overnight.

The second factor is that Manchester United is not Chelsea, whom Abramovich rescued from imminent bankruptcy. Glazer’s arrival is neither needed nor welcome, and the hard core of United’s support will not fall in step with Glazer. Season tickets will not be renewed, matches will be boycotted and an angry atmosphere will pervade at each of United’s home games. Take away the hard core and we will soon see how fickle the nouveau fans will be. Ever been in Manchester on a rainy February evening?

In the humble opinion of your correspondent, Glazer has made the mistake of assuming an unlimited source of cash from the United supporters – from their pockets into his – irrespective of the fact that he is so despised. He fails to realise that there is little elasticity in the budgets of the vast majority of United supporters. He underestimates the measures that the hard core 20,000 of United’s most loyal fans are prepared to take to ensure he is not successful in milking them of their cash for his own personal financial gain.
Expect empty spaces at Old Trafford. Expect a further decline in the team’s fortunes as the rapidly ageing squad is not replaced with new and exciting talent. Expect Glazer to fail.