I think people are being way over sensitive. He was 86, it's not a tragedy or someone being taken young, so he's 'done one'. Build a ****ing bridge. And his name is spelt wrong.
Certainly, I can't see why anyone gives a ****, he was a **** and contributed his large slice to the big pie of people to **** the game over. I'm glad he's dead, just his 6 sons and 14 grandchildren left to die now. I thought his name was spelt wrong but you know what these Yanks are like with their stupid alterations to our proud language
What he and his family did , take out loans to buy out the major share holders of Man U, then when he got the required 70 odd % de-listed them from the stock market, leaving those small share holders, mainly supporters who thought in a small way they we investing in their club with nowt was so wrong. Further to that, due to the financial crisis he needed to raise funds to service the debt, so he re-listed on the stock market and sold 10% of his stake
Malcolm Glazer should never have been allowed to take over Manchester United American billionaire did not even visit Old Trafford once and was only attracted to Manchester United by the money By Jim White12:19AM BST 29 May 2014 175 Comments To paraphrase John F Kennedy, when he took over the club Malcolm Glazer was not interested in what he might do for Manchester United. He was solely motivated by what Manchester United might do for him. As chairman and sole owner, the late American businessman had no concern about being a custodian of the club’s history, tradition and cultural standing. He was not a fan. He had never thrilled to the genius of George Best, or leapt out of his seat at a Ryan Giggs run. Not once did he even visit the place. Which is odd. You might have thought a modicum of curiosity would compel him to take a cursory look. What attracted him to the most profitable football business in England was straightforward: he was in it for the money. Malcolm Glazer had many charitable interests at home in Florida. He was also a family man, and his passing will be mourned. But he was an owner who should never have been allowed into English football. For sure, he did nothing illegal in his takeover. He may have been canny and cunning, devious too. But he never acted outside the law. He accumulated shares on the open market with ruthless dispatch. At the time of his manoeuvre, through 2003 into the autumn of 2004, the club manager Sir Alex Ferguson was in the midst of a bitter dispute with the Irish Coolmore racing conglomerate over stud rights to the horse Rock of Gibraltar. In an act of calculated revenge, as Glazer was going quietly about his work, the Coolmore crew accumulated a huge number of United shares, largely picked up from those with small portfolios, hoping to use them as leverage to put pressure on Ferguson’s position as manager. Shareholders who supported Ferguson were happy to sell on to Glazer rather than risk their shares landing in the Coolmore saddle bag. The American, having quietly built up a shareholding of some 70 per cent, discovered that the only people standing in the way of complete ownership were a group whose incentive was to inflict short-term damage, not exert long-term influence. When he made them an offer they could not refuse, they acquiesced. Ferguson’s pique had handed him the property on a plate. Not that Glazer used his own money to arrange the deal. Glazer was a man desperately short of readies, who, as his shopping mall and American football franchise empire stuttered and stumbled, needed an urgent injection of liquid assets. Not someone anxious to pump them into a sporting institution on the other side of the Atlantic. What he did was buy United – a business operating comfortably in the black – with a huge mortgage and then invite its customers to pay off the debt. Called a leveraged buy‑out, it was a ruse which enabled him to fund a takeover way beyond his level of liquidity. It was a reckless, shameless, unscrupulous purchase. Yet it was entirely legal. And – in a manner which Glazer knew would never be allowed by American sports administrators – the Premier League stood by and let it happen. With his success, Glazer effectively demonstrated to the rest of the international trading world that English football was run by those asleep at the wheel. In his wake came a host of foreign businessmen whose intent was not investment but asset stripping. Not that bankruptcy was ever likely to be the ultimate consequence of the Glazer ownership at United. The place was too sharp a moneymaking machine for that. But there is no doubt that the requirement to service the debt – reckoned by financial observers to be something north of £600 million sucked from the bottom line over 10 years – has had a profound effect on the business. The money removed to pay the debt would have been sufficient to have allowed every season ticket holder to attend every game over the past decade for free and the club would still have made a profit. However, it would be wrong to suggest that debt was the only influence the owner had on United. Glazer was determined to squeeze his asset. Convinced the previous administration was not sufficiently rigorous in its money spinning, he and his sons instituted an aggressive marketing campaign which hugely increased revenues by selling off commercial partnerships across the globe. Not that Glazer’s death will have the same immediate effect on United that Ferguson’s retirement did. He has had nothing to do with the running of the club latterly, effectively bequeathing the asset to his children when he suffered a crippling stroke five years ago. It is thought, however, that at least three of the six Glazer family owners are keen to realise their asset at the earliest opportunity. When that feeling becomes a majority, the biggest yard sale in British sporting history will ensue. And this time, United fans will be hoping that those taking control have at least a hint of interest in the place beyond its cash reserves. Phew summat like this could never happen at City eh?
And further to that, the protesters who did'nt renew their season tickets were quickly replaced by premier league whores who sold their souls to watch the glorious game whilst quietly sitting covered by tartan blanket sipping their bovril. The protesters should have stayed and continued the protest in the ground, it was their club. Anyone who says that protesters should walk away is a knob.
