Gripes about Straits Times part II

From Straits Times :

Nov 14, 2004

Civil war at Man United

Old Trafford is reeling after tycoon Glazer removes three directors, players face wage cuts

MANCHESTER

MANCHESTER United may insist on calling themselves the biggest soccer club in the world but even they can no longer afford to pay for the best players.

The club's biggest earners have been warned to expect wage cuts and a shift to performance-related pay if they want to stay at Old Trafford.

The startling admission came as American tycoon and renegade shareholder Malcolm Glazer used his £205 million (S$627.3 million) stake to force out three club directors during Friday's annual general meeting as revenge for the board's rejection of his takeover bid last month.
It capped what has been a tumultous two seasons at Old Trafford.

United were badly hit because they got a smaller share of the European Champions League pot after finishing a modest third in the English Premiership last season.

And chief executive David Gill claims that players will have to pay the price for their recent failures following a fall in profits of £8 million.

Roy Keane is one of a number of players - along with Ryan Giggs, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Roy Carroll and John O'Shea - whose contracts are up for renewal because their current deals expire at the end of next season.

Captain Keane currently earns £90,000 a week, but United are ready to make up to 25 per cent of wages incentive-driven.

Giggs has already rejected the offer of a one-year extension and United's new tough stance could further weaken the club's position in the transfer market when competing against the likes of Chelsea and Real Madrid.

Last summer, United lost Ronaldinho to Barcelona. A year later, Chelsea stole PSV Eindhoven's Arjen Robben from under the nose of manager Alex Ferguson by offering him more money.

The Dutch sensation said on Friday: 'I had a meeting with Ferguson and it was very good. After that, the clubs had to come to a deal and it took a long time for United and they didn't come to a deal.

'It's not difficult for me because Chelsea came in.'

United, seventh in the table after their worst start to a Premiership campaign, need quality signings badly given their lacklustre bargains like Eric Djemba-Djemba, Kleberson, Liam Miller and Tim Howard, and the latest news will worry fans.

Gill said: 'We can't ignore what's happening. The players need to understand that the economics of the game have changed over the last few years.

'Wage cuts would depend on the player. We'd like, particularly for the younger players, to have more appearance-based money.'

At the same time, Gill has to find a way to deal with a takeover campaign by Glazer, which is growing more hostile.

The American, who sent an associate to vote secretly on his behalf at the AGM, removed legal adviser Maurice Watkins, who has been on the board since 1984, commercial director Andy Anson and non-executive director Philip Yea in an open declaration of war.

The board has now been reduced to just four members.

Equally worrying was how John Magnier and J.P. McManus, the biggest shareholders with 28.9 per cent, did not do anything to stop Glazer, despite an appeal from the board, reported The Telegraph.

The Irish millionires could have saved the three members. Instead, they abstained in the vote, an indication that it is only a matter of time before they sell their shares to the American, giving him sole control of United.

But Glazer did not have it all his own way after JP Morgan, one of the world's largest financial firms, announced that it had ended its association with him as it was uncomfortable with the aggressive approach. His public relations adviser, and Allen & Overy, the law firm he used in the negotiations, also resigned.

The Glazer family, who own 28.11 per cent of the club, were furious at United's Oct 25 decision not to recommend their takeover, which would have left the club with debts of £500 million, and without Old Trafford, which was to have been sold to raise a further £175 million.

The stadium, United's home since 1910, would then be leased back but be renamed in a sponsorship deal to raise further funds for the club.

All the United board could do in the aftermath of the dismissal of the three directors was to say it was 'disappointed' by the outcome of the vote and urge Glazer to stop his guerrilla tactics.

I just love bashing Straits Times nowadays, see what I mean about shitty journalism? This is yet another case about cutting and paste whatever there is without ANY effort to check out what is right and what is just pure bullshit conjecture.

But first I have to agree that Glazer's actions are nothing short of declaring war on the Man United board. There are only 4 directors left now (though the 3 who were axed can still be reinstated but confirmation would have to depend on ratification at the next AGM). He could very well push for his own representative on the board (thereby creating more problems for the board) but that of course would be subjected to a vote as well.

However, most of the rest of the article is bullshit.

Firstly, the difference in the prize money between second and third place is less than a million pounds. Hardly what you would call a big difference, especially for a club like Manchester United. It is true however that money from television deals had declined but that is true for every club in the country as the Sky money declines. It does not affect Manchester United alone.

Secondly, United had not paid the highest wages in the world ever. It is nothing new. It was there when we could not sign players like Ronaldo and Zidane simply because the wage structure in place did not allow it. It had not prevented United from achieving success (even if you do pay high wages and make big signings, you are not guaranteed success, look at Veron, look at Real Madrid).

Famous people in the football world (Bolton chairman for one) had already said that its a good thing that United are taking the lead on having performance based contracts and that this is the way to go for football clubs in the future because the days of huge inflows of television money is gone. Getting your finances in order is hardly what I would call a disadvantage. If anything, this is better as players who come to United would genuinely want to succeed and do well instead of being here for a big pay day.

Man United did not lose Arjen Robben to Chelsea because of the player's wages. It is because they could not even agree a fee with PSV. As I have said before, Peter Kenyon fucked around with PSV and they got fed up and sold to Chelsea. The PSV chairman had come out after the deal was done to criticise the way Kenyon fucked around with them. And of course Arjen Robben was going to go to Chelsea because it is the only club he could have been allowed to discuss terms with. Yet again, shitty journalism without checking out the facts.

But perhaps my favourite piece of shitty journalism had to be the following:

The Irish millionires could have saved the three members. Instead, they abstained in the vote, an indication that it is only a matter of time before they sell their shares to the American, giving him sole control of United.

Could you follow the logic there? I for one could not. How can you arrive at that conclusion? It is just pure bullshit from a journalist (and ST copied it wholesale without thinking) who was desperately trying to paint a picture of a crisis at United. The Irish guys (hardly angels themselves though) had ALWAYS ABSTAINED from voting at AGMs. This is nothing new. So how can you arrive at the conclusion that they are going to sell to Glazer? This is just pure taking material out of context and anyhow putting an inference to it. If anything, speculation is that the Irish guys do not really think much of Glazer though that is also pretty much speculation and the situation would change if Glazer comes back and offer them much better terms.

The conclusion of the article also attempted pathetically to try and induce the reader to think that it is all over (the use of the words "All the United board could do...), and Glazer had gained the upper hand. This is simply not true. If anything, he had been weakened since Friday when JP Morgan pulled out as mentioned in the article. What was conveniently left out was the reason for the pull out was that JP Morgan had ADVISED Glazer not to vote against the resolutions but he went ahead and did it anyway. And so they pulled out. The board can also ask the Takeover Panel to force Glazer to state clear his intentions to either bid for the club or leave it alone in layman's terms. There are also other things that the board and the fans (don't underestimate them) could do. Glazer's path to takeover is far from smooth. It might have been inevitable if he was rich as Abramovich, but he is no Roman.

I hate bullshit journalism.