[SIZE="4"]The Glazers may be bad for Manchester United but that is good for the game...
By Martin Samuel
18th January 2010
Bumped into Geoffrey Boycott, England legend and Manchester United fan, in Johannesburg this week. ‘So,’ he said, with the smug smile of one who is not used to hearing bad news about his club, ‘who are we buying, then?’
It would appear Geoffrey had fallen a little out of the loop while on tour, so he was brought up to speed on a few things. Ending on a positive note, I mentioned United were considering having a whip-round among famous fans and had heard he was good for a few quid. He didn’t seem too interested in that, and wandered off to resume butchering England’s batsmen.
And this is the contradiction at the heart of the Glazer saga. Empathy for Manchester United supporters, while quietly relishing what is happening to their club for the change it might bring to English football.
Not because anyone has it in for United specifically but because the balance of power in football must alter over time if the sport is not to become moribund. Evolution takes place when the alpha club mess up. Mistakes may occur on the field, or off, but the bottom line is, when somebody gets it wrong, a rival, better managed, better prepared,
becomes prominent.
If the Glazer ownership presents a genuine challenge to the supremacy of Manchester United then what is a catastrophe at Old Trafford is, for the rest, a good thing. Here was a club set fair to win an unprecedented fourth consecutive League title in English football, and now it may not.
Yes, it would be preferable if any downfall was for football, rather than financial, reasons, but both elements need expert management to produce success.
A popular theory is that Liverpool’s domination of English football ended because the club failed to adequately replace an ageing team. Yet, just as significantly, it failed to capitalise commercially on the boom in the English game which limited its spending power. Arsenal fell away in the last five years because of the limitations placed on Arsene Wenger, the manager, by the building of a new stadium. Economics invariably play a role in the balance of power, and if boardroom decisions precipitate a decline at Manchester United, these will not be unique circumstances.
The Glazers’ business plan is increasingly troubled, but three consecutive League titles and a Champions League win would suggest it has not been without its benefits. The idea that there was some golden era of club ownership – now expanded to include Manchester United plc – is something of a myth, too.
It is simplistically imagined that, without the Glazers, Manchester United would have those same titles, with the same income, a £91million operating profit and £80m from the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo, to be lavished on the finest players in Europe.
Here is an alternative scenario. On December 7, 2005, Manchester United lost 2-1 to Benfica to finish bottom of Champions League group D. It is the only time they have failed to make it to the knock-out stage since the 32-team format was introduced. The Glazers had been in charge for six months.
Had United been a plc there would have been an immediate impact on the share price followed by a statement at least, and possibly a profits warning. Who knows what the ramifications would have been from there? With no shareholders to placate, the Glazers simply kept their mouths shut, flew home and in 18 months Manchester United were champions again.
Now extrapolate the fall-out from a financial hit to the plc in 2005. Would it have left United open to offers on the odd player, perhaps an expendable unproven one like that Portuguese lad who many had marked down as a show pony? That would have plugged the Champions League shortfall straight away. Even had Ronaldo been around to ignite Manchester United’s resurgence, the idea of three League titles and £80m from last summer is a little far-fetched.
A plc board does not turn down very good money for a player who wants to leave and there was £60m sitting on the table from Real Madrid in 2008. So, no Ronaldo, no third straight title because take him away and Liverpool are League champions and considerably stronger for it. Maybe they keep Xabi Alonso, too.
Nobody knows what would have happened to Manchester United plc, but to afford it every positive that has taken place under the Glazers, and none of the negatives, is shallow.
Sir Alex Ferguson served both regimes and there must be a reason why he remains an advocate of private ownership. Predictably, those favouring strict financial regulation have seized on the crisis at Manchester United to advocate reform. Yet, if anything, this demonstrates the contrary worth of football’s free market as an agent of change. If clubs could only spend what they generated, Manchester United’s supremacy would be as good as cemented.
Indeed, there could be a renewed resolve to generate television deals individually, rather than collectively, to maximise this advantage. That would spell the end of competition in the English game. The financial gain would be so great that a chimpanzee could take United to the title every year.
If Manchester United, like Bayern Munich, Juventus, Real Madrid, Lyon, could never mess up, how could the game evolve? Ultimately, football regulates itself. Borussia Dortmund briefly dominated German football, were overstretched financially, and are now mediocre. For much the same reason, the biggest transfer that has taken place in England during this transfer window is the £3m paid by Birmingham City for Michel of Sporting Lisbon.
The young Serbian player, Adem Ljajic, on whom Manchester United had first refusal, went to Fiorentina instead for £7.1m. His club, Partizan Belgrade, claimed United did not have the money.
That is football’s balance of power shifting. That is change at work. Manchester United will not fold, but they may not be as strong for a while. People have to be allowed to make mistakes.
For, if they were not, Arsenal, the first Bank of England club, would now be celebrating
almost a century of dominance.
|
Re: Worried about the debt at United ? What are YOU going to do about it?
17-01-2010, 07:29 PM
but life goes on 
Re: Worried about the debt at United ? What are YOU going to do about it?
Similar Threads for: Worried about the debt at United ? What are YOU going to do about it?
