Last month's editorial, some copies are still available in Sportspages and Aleef's newsagent on Piccadilly approach:
After the continual off-field distractions which dominated so much of last season, to have hoped for United to grant us a summer of respite from non-footballing matters probably wasn’t asking much of the powers-that-be. As if. Those seismic events of May 12th initiated the most turbulent and uncertain period for United fans since the relegation of 1974, and with it the most intense civil war of words between Reds that any can recall. To renew or to boycott? FC United or Old Trafford?
The arguments have been long and loud and it’s taken a brave internet warrior to wade through the jungle of Red Issue’s website forum openly brandishing an extreme opinion of any variety such has been the passion evoked on all sides. And is it any wonder? The opposition to Glazer’s takeover is not about some xenophobic or superficial prejudice, but has at its core a sense of deep loss of people who hold the essence of a football club so close to their hearts. That this loss should be inflicted - jeopardising the very future of a club which has been a pillar of Mancunian life for so long - so that a grotesquely rich man can chase a vain punt of plundering ever greater wealth, whilst effectively forcing those from whom he seeks to profit to pay for his buyout, well it’s a wonder that there hasn’t been more opposition.
Before moving on, it’s worth repeating some of the arguments heard this summer:
“He must have a business plan to have convinced the banks to lend him the money” some people cry, but no matter what a person’s debts, someone will always give them credit at a crippling rate of interest. In June The Times’ report of Glazer’s leaked business plan showed that he expected to realise operating profits of £57m in 2006, £89m in 2007 and £107m in 2008. Glazer has to hit 85% of those targets else he starts to cede control of the club to the hedge funds he borrowed money from. In 2004 the plc’s profit came in at £19m. The cost of running the plc (including shareholders’ dividend payments) has been estimated in some quarters as up to £18m. Which still leaves a mighty shortfall on the projections.
“Aaah, but what about the markets to be exploited in the Far East?” The mystique which has built up around untapped Asian millions has surely been blown away this summer. Yet again United failed to sell out a single game, and in Beijing, only 24,000 turned up (or could afford to) despite tickets costing a mere £6. Such was the lack of demand you could get them for £1.50 outside the ground. As for projected PPV contracts being of any value, locals in the industry say it’s a non-starter - it’s easy enough to get foreign satellite decoders in England, never mind Hong Kong. Such projected figures of Asian support are massively overstated anyway. United’s ludicrous commercial director and arch-Glazerite Andy Anson was quoted thus in UWS last May: “I honestly think there are 10m people in the UK who would describe themselves as United fans.” (Remember folks, this is supposed to an expert saying this.) Consider some real figures for a brief moment: in 1990 the 25m who watched the World Cup semi-final between England and West Germany formed the biggest British TV audience ever for a football match. Which presumably included every single man, woman and dog with only the barest passing interest in the sport. And Andy Anson “honestly thinks” two out of every five of those people support United.
Some people may ask what financial expertise SU, or IMUSA, or potheads from the fanzines possess, but not one independent media or sports expert of any description, anywhere in the world is yet to come up with an analysis of how Glazer will pay back the interest, let alone the actual debt or turn himself a profit. One person in a position to know the business was plc Chairman Roy Gardner. He was never a RI favourite, but unlike David Gill who has a near £1m salary to protect, he had no vested interest in the Glazer takeover. In May his last duty to shareholders warned of a long term “downward spiral in both team and financial performance” due to “too much leverage” in the bid. He also claimed “the Board sought a range of legally binding protections for the football club [and] its fans in relation to future levels of net debt, new player investment and transfers, team selection, Old Trafford, ticket prices…no such protections or assurances have been forthcoming.” Whatever rehearsed PR guff is spouted by Glazer on MUTV, his actions speak far louder.
Still, Glazer and his debt are going nowhere in the short term, regardless of any opposition, and it’s a banker that little will materially alter in the running of the club during this first twelve months of the regime. Their accounting gymnastics mean that, whatever happens, the first year’s worth of interest due on their borrowing can be met by the £40m cash previously assigned for the development of the new corner stands, with those payments being switched to the “never never”, as revealed in the Independent in May. The coming months then, are a critical period for the independent fans’ movement at Old Trafford. The battle to prevent Glazer taking over has been lost, and given the belief that his business isn’t viable, there will be another fight for the future of the club in the medium term. Decisions need to be made at IMUSA: for now, rather than target Glazer directly they should surely regroup and continue fighting for the core principles on which the organisation was founded – representing and defending the interests of the match-going fan. Building up a large support base amongst United fans now is the key to maintaining its credibility and ensuring it is a serious player when that time comes. Decisions also need to be made at Shareholders United. What are their future intentions? The Supporters Trust will continue, but surely it’s far better that as an organisation they merge their membership with IMUSA and produce a much larger, more powerful unified voice, once again in anticipation of the day Glazer seeks a way out. Both groups need clear and decisive leadership that, instead of alienating the match-going fan, will encourage them that they are organisations to represent their interests.
As for the Red-on-Red spats and arguments, they’ve gotten extremely tedious and serve no positive purpose. Positions are known, points are understood. Further preaching of the futility of boycotts or of the merits of FC United will convert no one to the other’s cause, an entrenchment of positions will only result. That any sort of schism should exist is a great shame, after all there are 61,000 fans who go to Old Trafford every week who are left without one of the 3000 tickets for United away games. FC United shouldn’t be viewed as an either/or option, but as another branch of the United tree. Clearly it won’t be to everyone’s liking, but it’s an enjoyable option for those who so choose it. Everyone’s made their choices post-Glazer and there can’t be any right or wrong, you do what you choose to do. So the next time you hear any Reds arguing the toss about whose fault it all is, tell them not to point at each other but towards those ghastly- and undernourished-looking members of that “sporting family” in the Old Trafford Directors’ box.