Hello all you scummy manc fans I had a thought... I thought that Glazer may have thought it a good idea for Man U to put a bid in for the Olympic stadium. Being American, he is use to their football teams setting up shop all over the place, with little thought to their origins. If such a thought was voiced, he would have been told what a no no it would have been to consider it, but let us do just that. How important is it for such global "brands" as "United" or the "Red Devils" and "LFC" or "The Mighty Reds" to stay in their home towns? Would they get higher gates and be able to charge higher season ticket prices, if they were located in London? Yes it would outrage fans, but looking at it from the business point of view, could it be a serious threat, specifically with American owners?
Well United's current stadium holds nearly 76,000 people and if it was extended, I suspect that we'd get more through the gates. United and Liverpool have pulling power all over England so in theory could be moved anywhere but there would be no reason to move them imo. If a club with a limited fanbase was taken over by an American businessman, that could be a different story, as they may wish to tap into the huge London population. However, relocating to London for any club would be risky as there are already so many established clubs there and there would be no point in having a big ground in London, if nobody would bother top fill it. It's like with the MK Dons. Their attendances aren't exactly Earth shattering. Having said that, even though I'm an "out of towner" I'd be outraged if United were ever shunted to a new home town or city for potential business gain. I think that would be a disgrace and would lead to the downfall of the club. I don't think it could work as the culture in football is different to American sports where the franchise system is just accepted as part of the game.
Surely FSG would be much more likely to put a bid in? After all, they're having to write off most of the costs of the proposed Stanley Park development and are still no closer to expanding Anfield. Building a bigger stadium was the graveyard of your last American owners, so surely buying a ready made one would appeal to Henry and Co. And John Henry has said he wants to copy the Arsenal business model, so buying a stadium in London, cranking up the prices and selling the stadium name would seem to be an ideal first step. The Lebron James Olympic Stadium for you guys in 2012/13? I can't see it being an option for United, even in fantasy land. Our stadium is bigger and better designed. We make more revenue per game than the Emirates, despite much lower prices, and have the potential to expand to almost 100,000 in future, so why would we need a new stadium with a capacity of just 60,000?
You're looking at this far too logicically Swarbs, yes FSG could have been the bad guys, but don't we all hate the Glazers? Henry and Co seem to get it, but you look at the Glazers, and think they don't even know how the game is played and nor do they care. The question is more about the concept of our football teams doing the same thing as US football teams did in the 90's (80's?) and just change city, because the new city offered more money. As merrysupersteve points out, it is only the top clubs in the prem that could pull it off, as their fan base, while strong locally, is also strong nationally or even internationally. I was even thinking about the idea of moving to New York and still being allowed to play in the prem, a bit far fetched, but still a viable option...
Really? Cos you look at the Glazers and see how they have invested vast amounts of money in players like Carrick and Berbatov, with almost no resale value, just because the club needed them to win trophies. Then you look as FSG, and all they seem to want to do is invest in young players so they can try to sell them for more money in the future and line their pockets. Maybe that's another way in which they are copying the Arsenal model? Here's hoping you also copy the Arsenal success model Also, the Glazers targeted Man Utd right from the start, accumulating shares gradually before launching a full takeover. Which indicates they chose Man Utd specifically, and thus understand the value of the club and the brand in Manchester. Whereas FSG only went for Liverpool cos they were going on the cheap, and they had already failed to buy Marseille. Which indicates that they don't really care about Liverpool's history, they just wanted a European football club to play with. In my view it's entirely unfeasible. Like merry pointed out, only clubs that aren't viable in their current location would consider moving. That's the only reason US football teams moved around - the new city offered them money and facilities, and they would often be the only incumbent there and so would be guaranteed fans. That's the only reason Wimbledon moved - no money, small stadium they had to share with Palace and huge financial difficulties after Hamman withdrew his support. Also, there was no major incumbent football club in MK when they moved. The town wanted to attract a football club, whereas London is full of the things. If Utd or Liverpool tried to move to the Olympic Stadium, or any other site in London, they would break Football League rules about moving into the catchment area of another club - Leyton Orient are going to challenge West Ham's move to the Olympic Stadium on those very grounds. No chance Utd or Liverpool would get permission to move like that, unless they were in serious financial difficulties a la Liverpool last year but with no potential buyer coming in.
