As it is with every major change in TosH's life, TosH tends to get negative and worry excessively unneccessarily.... However, this time the worries seems to be more macro in nature, things that even the most optimistic of persons will concede that he is rather powerless to do anything about....
1. The environment
You know in secondary school Geography we learnt so much about the problems with the weather, climate etc and I was really quite worried. Melting of glaciers, rising sea water level, desertification, floods, droughts etc seemed so worrying then, but somehow nobody seemed to care about them. As I moved onto JC, I stopped taking Geography and somehow or rather, as they say, out of sight and out of mind. I stopped thinking about these issues, after all, the world could not end in my lifetime isn't it?
But all of a sudden, the shit has hit the fan! The buzzwords are now global warming and climate change. What a drastic change, and it seems like we have less than a decade to really save ourselves, dear oh dear... I must admit I have not been the most devoted environmentalist. I mean I do try and recycle most of my waste now that I have a bin outside my place and I do not use the air con in my room to save electricity... but I am guilty of one of the biggest sins - driving around. Even when it seems taking the bus is possible. I am just too lazy and short tempered to take public transport regularly now... In addition, I really love the feeling of freedom when cruising along the TPE at nigt. So even though the thought of giving up my Altis sometimes crosses my mind, I am still pretty unwilling to do so, will Mother Nature forgive me?
2. Singapore
Don't think I feel comfortable enough to talk about everything here on this public place. But I guess the layman will also know that the income gap, elitism etc are problems that will threaten the long term fabric of this country. I know I do not have the answers, so I am not really willing to be those who only complain with no solutions, but is this really the best that we can do? Can't we have our cake (economic progress, clean government, cosmopolitan) and eat it at the same time (equality, cohesiveness, quality of life)?
3. Myself
OK maybe this is something that I am not so powerless but still.... Even at this stage, I am still not sure if I made the right choice. Will I be able to survive the bond? Or would I be sacked for some gross misconduct? Will I be a good mentor? Will I earn enough money to support my parents and my above mentioned Altis? Will I save enough money for my retirement? And at the risk of sounding very very despo here.. Will I ever get married? If yes, where is THE SPECIAL ONE going to come from? Or is it a case of finding someone whom I can live with, rather than someone I can't live without? What do I do if i manage to survive my bond after 6 years? Go out and get more experience? Take risks? Pursue a PhD and try to find ways to eradicate poverty and global warming profitably? Or would I be forced to stay in even if I do a bad job simply because it might pay well or I have too many commitments? Or will I be happy to stay on coz i am doing a good job?
Questions, questions and more questions, and questions to which I have no answers at all.. Is it really the case that I can only take each day as it comes? What does life have in store for me? I really want to know.... but yet I fear I do not have the energy to keep on going...
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Asia fighting poverty by helping poor to save
From The Straits Times
Asia fighting poverty by helping poor to save
Microfinancing schemes can be useful in reducing income inequality, says NUS professor
By Shefali Rekhi, Assistant Foreign Editor
SMALL loans to help the little people have been taking off in Asia as a way to help tackle poverty in the region.
Microfinancing, as a financial tool, began when Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus started an experiment in 1974, during a famine in his home country, to give the poor small loans.
That proved immensely successful and, through the Grameen Bank that he founded in 1983, he managed to change the lives of more than 6.61 million people.
Today, bringing the 'unbanked' within the formal financial system has become the mantra in financial circles, with the phenomenon fairly widespread in Asia, and many involved in India, China, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam and elsewhere.
According to Washington University's Centre for Social Development director, Mr Michael Sherraden, the potential is enormous, with nearly half the people in the world not having access to secure and low-cost financial services.
Consequently, banking and financial institutions have been widening their reach to add a social dimension to their regular businesses as a way to tap into the untapped cashflow and contribute to reducing income inequality.
In China - where millions live in rural areas under poor living conditions - a local government initiative called the Hu Du Bi project in a county in western China has been attracting the central government's attention. It allows farmers to withdraw money from their social insurance accounts as loans for investments in agriculture.
According to Professor Yang Tuan of the Institute of Sociology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, the default rate has been zero in the past eight years of the scheme, and thousands have benefited.
In India, where close to a quarter of the people live below the poverty line, Basix, founded in 1996, has supported the livelihoods of more than a million rural poor households through microcredit, savings and insurance services.
But the task is by no means easy.
Said British researcher Stuart Rutherford, who heads a non-governmental organisation in Bangladesh: 'When poor people save, sometimes they have a goal, and sometimes not. It >really depends on whether they view it as risk management or are thinking of it (the savings) in terms of a lump sum.'
Accordingly, banking and financial institutions need to devise suitable tools. Mr Rutherford's Safesave Bangladesh has been working to introduce the poor to simple banking services.
The method of financing might also be applied to relatively more affluent Singapore, said Associate Professor Ngiam Tee Liang, head of the Department of Social Work at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
He argued that with globalisation, all countries, including Singapore, need to consider financial inclusion of all sections of society.
'With economic growth, you do not want the economic divide to widen, and you have to understand - how do you empower the low-income poor with facilities to motivate them to save?'
Prof Ngiam was speaking to The Straits Times on the sidelines of a global symposium - Savings, Assets and Financial Inclusion - organised by the NUS, together with Washington University in St Louis, the New America Foundation and the New York University, with Citi Foundation as its lead sponsor.
The three-day event, attended by delegates from across the world, ended yesterday.
Microfinancing follows from a belief that the poor can also save when encouraged to do so.
Many banks and financial institutions have been developing affordable schemes for the poor to do so, and Prof Ngiam said that Singapore could adapt some of the schemes to address the needs of the low-income groups here.
'The notion of saving and the purpose of saving may not be the same for all. We need to understand the dynamics of how people make choices,' he said. 'You cannot have policies for the middle class and just trim them down to the basic model for the poor.'
shefali@sph.com.sg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPOWERING THE POOR
'With economic growth, you do not want to widen the economic divide, and you have to understand - how do you empower the low-income poor with facilities to motivate them to save?'
ASSOCIATE PROF NGIAM TEE LIANG, who says microfinancing could help reduce income inequality in Singapore
Asia fighting poverty by helping poor to save
Microfinancing schemes can be useful in reducing income inequality, says NUS professor
By Shefali Rekhi, Assistant Foreign Editor
SMALL loans to help the little people have been taking off in Asia as a way to help tackle poverty in the region.
Microfinancing, as a financial tool, began when Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus started an experiment in 1974, during a famine in his home country, to give the poor small loans.
That proved immensely successful and, through the Grameen Bank that he founded in 1983, he managed to change the lives of more than 6.61 million people.
Today, bringing the 'unbanked' within the formal financial system has become the mantra in financial circles, with the phenomenon fairly widespread in Asia, and many involved in India, China, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam and elsewhere.
According to Washington University's Centre for Social Development director, Mr Michael Sherraden, the potential is enormous, with nearly half the people in the world not having access to secure and low-cost financial services.
Consequently, banking and financial institutions have been widening their reach to add a social dimension to their regular businesses as a way to tap into the untapped cashflow and contribute to reducing income inequality.
In China - where millions live in rural areas under poor living conditions - a local government initiative called the Hu Du Bi project in a county in western China has been attracting the central government's attention. It allows farmers to withdraw money from their social insurance accounts as loans for investments in agriculture.
According to Professor Yang Tuan of the Institute of Sociology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, the default rate has been zero in the past eight years of the scheme, and thousands have benefited.
In India, where close to a quarter of the people live below the poverty line, Basix, founded in 1996, has supported the livelihoods of more than a million rural poor households through microcredit, savings and insurance services.
But the task is by no means easy.
Said British researcher Stuart Rutherford, who heads a non-governmental organisation in Bangladesh: 'When poor people save, sometimes they have a goal, and sometimes not. It >really depends on whether they view it as risk management or are thinking of it (the savings) in terms of a lump sum.'
Accordingly, banking and financial institutions need to devise suitable tools. Mr Rutherford's Safesave Bangladesh has been working to introduce the poor to simple banking services.
The method of financing might also be applied to relatively more affluent Singapore, said Associate Professor Ngiam Tee Liang, head of the Department of Social Work at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
He argued that with globalisation, all countries, including Singapore, need to consider financial inclusion of all sections of society.
'With economic growth, you do not want the economic divide to widen, and you have to understand - how do you empower the low-income poor with facilities to motivate them to save?'
Prof Ngiam was speaking to The Straits Times on the sidelines of a global symposium - Savings, Assets and Financial Inclusion - organised by the NUS, together with Washington University in St Louis, the New America Foundation and the New York University, with Citi Foundation as its lead sponsor.
The three-day event, attended by delegates from across the world, ended yesterday.
Microfinancing follows from a belief that the poor can also save when encouraged to do so.
Many banks and financial institutions have been developing affordable schemes for the poor to do so, and Prof Ngiam said that Singapore could adapt some of the schemes to address the needs of the low-income groups here.
'The notion of saving and the purpose of saving may not be the same for all. We need to understand the dynamics of how people make choices,' he said. 'You cannot have policies for the middle class and just trim them down to the basic model for the poor.'
shefali@sph.com.sg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPOWERING THE POOR
'With economic growth, you do not want to widen the economic divide, and you have to understand - how do you empower the low-income poor with facilities to motivate them to save?'
ASSOCIATE PROF NGIAM TEE LIANG, who says microfinancing could help reduce income inequality in Singapore
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Article 3
And the Independent:
Brian Viner: I was as ridiculously wide of the mark last week as a penalty hitting the corner flag
Published: 09 June 2007
Hell hath no fury like Manchester United fans scorned, and as the dispenser of some of that scorn, I have this past week been the object of the fury. There have been long periods when emails have been dropping into my in-tray at the rate of about one a minute, not all of them questioning my parentage and making suggestions about my perverse habits in the bedroom, but not all of them not.
My act of provocation was to write last Saturday, in the "Who I Don't Like" item adjacent to this column, that with another league title won and £50m worth of new players already lined up for next season, the United fans who waged a campaign of hatred against the Glazer family should be feeling a little apologetic. I suppose I had in mind the people who burnt effigies and issued threats of violence.
To those United fans who raised my own club loyalties - "I would have thought that an Everton fan with its great history and tradition of loyal support would have understood exactly why many Man U fans remain bitterly opposed to these carpetbaggers taking over our club," wrote a Mr Paul Roby - I replied that I feel the same contempt for the Evertonians who scrawled "Rooney die" on the walls near Goodison Park. The game has no place for such sentiments, whether aimed at wonderful young footballers or rich American "carpetbaggers".
But I am drifting away from the point, which is unequivocal contrition. I have read every email sent from outraged United fans, or at least the relatively temperate ones, and I have also consulted journalistic colleagues who know more than I do about the situation at Old Trafford. As a consequence, I realise that what I wrote was ill-considered, naive, and as spectacularly wide of the mark as a penalty kick hitting a corner flag.
The Glazers, and chief executive David Gill, and even to a certain extent Sir Alex Ferguson, are plainly entitled to the disgust of United fans; indeed, I have been astounded by how low Ferguson has sunk in the estimation of many. None of them question his brilliance as a manager; lots of them question his character. "Lifelong socialist? He's an absolute hypocrite," wrote one of my correspondents. "I would rather go for a pint with Tommy Doc than 'Sir' Alex any day of the week."
My journalistic source, a man with impeccable contacts at Old Trafford, tells me that the Glazers, terrified of a major boycott by fans after saddling the club with debts of over £650m, knew that they had to keep Fergie on-side. "They are also personally scared of him," my friend said, "and he loves that. He's having a much better time than he did in the latter days of the plc."
In the meantime, season-ticket prices have been hiked by 26 per cent since May 2005 and next season, season-ticket holders will not have the option to pay for cup games as well as Premiership games, but will be compelled to do so, taking the cost of most season tickets well over £1,000. Clearly, the fans are being asked to pay off the Glazers' unwieldy mortgage, and Ferguson, as many of them see it, is complicit.
On the new players, the chairman of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, Nick Towle, wrote: "The money for these transfers does not come from the Glazers. It comes from the club's own funds. The Glazers have not put a penny of their own money into the team and never will. All funds for the team and even for the Glazers to acquire United has been borrowed by the club itself at vast cost to it (£62m a year paid out in interest, confirmed by the Glazers' own spokesman). So who actually pays for these players? Why, the fans of course. One reason why you have not heard from anti-Glazer fans about these transfers is that we are busy preparing legal challenges against the club for (i) raising ticket prices by 11-14 per cent next season, the third large rise in the two years since the Glazer takeover, and (ii) forcing season-ticket holders to join the 'Automatic Cup Scheme'."
The only good thing to have come out of the Glazer takeover, I have been told time and time again this week, is Bury-based FC United of the Northern Premier League, formed by disillusioned Reds and thriving. I have been invited to a game next season and look forward to it, if I can tear myself away from my perverse bedroom habits.
As for another bedroom habit I have been accused of this week, they say that it makes you blind. Yet I have had my eyes opened, to the determination not only of the Glazers but of all the Americans flooding into Premiership football to make money, not least Messrs Hicks and Gillett at the other end of the East Lancs Road. They are not interested in the trickledown effect, in the grassroots of the game being watered, because they are not interested in the game. I apologise for elevating them on this page last week. I should have known better, and now I do.
Brian Viner: I was as ridiculously wide of the mark last week as a penalty hitting the corner flag
Published: 09 June 2007
Hell hath no fury like Manchester United fans scorned, and as the dispenser of some of that scorn, I have this past week been the object of the fury. There have been long periods when emails have been dropping into my in-tray at the rate of about one a minute, not all of them questioning my parentage and making suggestions about my perverse habits in the bedroom, but not all of them not.
My act of provocation was to write last Saturday, in the "Who I Don't Like" item adjacent to this column, that with another league title won and £50m worth of new players already lined up for next season, the United fans who waged a campaign of hatred against the Glazer family should be feeling a little apologetic. I suppose I had in mind the people who burnt effigies and issued threats of violence.
To those United fans who raised my own club loyalties - "I would have thought that an Everton fan with its great history and tradition of loyal support would have understood exactly why many Man U fans remain bitterly opposed to these carpetbaggers taking over our club," wrote a Mr Paul Roby - I replied that I feel the same contempt for the Evertonians who scrawled "Rooney die" on the walls near Goodison Park. The game has no place for such sentiments, whether aimed at wonderful young footballers or rich American "carpetbaggers".
But I am drifting away from the point, which is unequivocal contrition. I have read every email sent from outraged United fans, or at least the relatively temperate ones, and I have also consulted journalistic colleagues who know more than I do about the situation at Old Trafford. As a consequence, I realise that what I wrote was ill-considered, naive, and as spectacularly wide of the mark as a penalty kick hitting a corner flag.
The Glazers, and chief executive David Gill, and even to a certain extent Sir Alex Ferguson, are plainly entitled to the disgust of United fans; indeed, I have been astounded by how low Ferguson has sunk in the estimation of many. None of them question his brilliance as a manager; lots of them question his character. "Lifelong socialist? He's an absolute hypocrite," wrote one of my correspondents. "I would rather go for a pint with Tommy Doc than 'Sir' Alex any day of the week."
My journalistic source, a man with impeccable contacts at Old Trafford, tells me that the Glazers, terrified of a major boycott by fans after saddling the club with debts of over £650m, knew that they had to keep Fergie on-side. "They are also personally scared of him," my friend said, "and he loves that. He's having a much better time than he did in the latter days of the plc."
In the meantime, season-ticket prices have been hiked by 26 per cent since May 2005 and next season, season-ticket holders will not have the option to pay for cup games as well as Premiership games, but will be compelled to do so, taking the cost of most season tickets well over £1,000. Clearly, the fans are being asked to pay off the Glazers' unwieldy mortgage, and Ferguson, as many of them see it, is complicit.
On the new players, the chairman of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, Nick Towle, wrote: "The money for these transfers does not come from the Glazers. It comes from the club's own funds. The Glazers have not put a penny of their own money into the team and never will. All funds for the team and even for the Glazers to acquire United has been borrowed by the club itself at vast cost to it (£62m a year paid out in interest, confirmed by the Glazers' own spokesman). So who actually pays for these players? Why, the fans of course. One reason why you have not heard from anti-Glazer fans about these transfers is that we are busy preparing legal challenges against the club for (i) raising ticket prices by 11-14 per cent next season, the third large rise in the two years since the Glazer takeover, and (ii) forcing season-ticket holders to join the 'Automatic Cup Scheme'."
The only good thing to have come out of the Glazer takeover, I have been told time and time again this week, is Bury-based FC United of the Northern Premier League, formed by disillusioned Reds and thriving. I have been invited to a game next season and look forward to it, if I can tear myself away from my perverse bedroom habits.
As for another bedroom habit I have been accused of this week, they say that it makes you blind. Yet I have had my eyes opened, to the determination not only of the Glazers but of all the Americans flooding into Premiership football to make money, not least Messrs Hicks and Gillett at the other end of the East Lancs Road. They are not interested in the trickledown effect, in the grassroots of the game being watered, because they are not interested in the game. I apologise for elevating them on this page last week. I should have known better, and now I do.
Article 2
And Jim White in the Telegraph....
'Over the last couple of weeks there has been a growing feeling abroad, as demonstrated in newspaper columns and on various radio phone-ins, that the Glazer administration is proving to be nothing like as bad for Manchester United as the naysayers and doom mongers insisted it would when the first family of Florida took over at Old Trafford three years ago.
Consider the evidence, say the Americans' new found supporters: United have won the League, Sir Alex Ferguson tells us he has never been happier in his job, the team have played the most sparkling football imaginable.
What's more, in the last fortnight, Ferguson has embarked on a transfer spending spree that has left his rivals floundering. Owen Hargreaves, Anderson and Nani have been signed for big, big money. Far from being constricted as he once was by limits imposed by the plc, under the Americans' benevolent ownership, the manager has been able to pay whatever is required to bring the top talent to Old Trafford. And in the case of Cristiano Ronaldo's new contract, to pay them to stay once they have arrived. It is all, so we have been told, thanks to Uncle Malcolm and his smiling, hands-off way of doing things.
Anyone who has recently received an invitation to renew their season ticket to Old Trafford, however, will know precisely how way off the mark this new received opinion is. Far from the Glazers cheerily dipping into their bottomless pockets, the demands now popping through letter boxes reveal precisely who is financing not only the development of the team but also the Glazers' very ownership of the club.
To watch United's home Premiership games during 2007-08, season-ticket holders will have to pay 14 per cent more than they did last time round, with typical prices rising from £665 to £760. In short, the kind of above-inflation rise that not even rail companies would impose on their customers. It is important to remember there is no additional benefit to the fan in this new charge: their seat is not to be padded during the summer break, there will be no increase in leg-room or any addition of central heating.
Moreover, this is not the end of the extra cost. A pernicious additional charge is there in the small print, overlooked by many who automatically renew year on year. For the privilege of buying a season pass, holders are obliged to buy tickets for every home cup game.
Now many of them may wish to. But the point is, from now on they will have to. Even if work or family circumstances prevent them from attending a midweek Carling Cup game, they are required to fork out for it. Thus, in effect, if United have a decent cup run, season tickets will be costing as much as £500 more than they did last term.
Where all this extra money is going to is simple: it is to pay down the Glazers' mountainous debt. That plus financing the purchase of the new players whose presence is absolutely essential to maintaining a saleable product. In other words, far from being proven wrong by what has been happening recently, what the anti-Glazer movement said all along is coming to pass: it is the fans who are buying the club for a set of owners they were never consulted about in the first place. The only choice they have in the issue is to walk away and no longer support their team.
Before followers of rival teams snigger too hard into their beer, this is precisely the threat to Manchester City diehards should the Thais take over, or Arsenal fans if the Americans move in. Don't be fooled by glitzy promises of new investment. The only investment the new style of foreign owner makes is in the initial purchase. For everything else, there's the fans.'
'Over the last couple of weeks there has been a growing feeling abroad, as demonstrated in newspaper columns and on various radio phone-ins, that the Glazer administration is proving to be nothing like as bad for Manchester United as the naysayers and doom mongers insisted it would when the first family of Florida took over at Old Trafford three years ago.
Consider the evidence, say the Americans' new found supporters: United have won the League, Sir Alex Ferguson tells us he has never been happier in his job, the team have played the most sparkling football imaginable.
What's more, in the last fortnight, Ferguson has embarked on a transfer spending spree that has left his rivals floundering. Owen Hargreaves, Anderson and Nani have been signed for big, big money. Far from being constricted as he once was by limits imposed by the plc, under the Americans' benevolent ownership, the manager has been able to pay whatever is required to bring the top talent to Old Trafford. And in the case of Cristiano Ronaldo's new contract, to pay them to stay once they have arrived. It is all, so we have been told, thanks to Uncle Malcolm and his smiling, hands-off way of doing things.
Anyone who has recently received an invitation to renew their season ticket to Old Trafford, however, will know precisely how way off the mark this new received opinion is. Far from the Glazers cheerily dipping into their bottomless pockets, the demands now popping through letter boxes reveal precisely who is financing not only the development of the team but also the Glazers' very ownership of the club.
To watch United's home Premiership games during 2007-08, season-ticket holders will have to pay 14 per cent more than they did last time round, with typical prices rising from £665 to £760. In short, the kind of above-inflation rise that not even rail companies would impose on their customers. It is important to remember there is no additional benefit to the fan in this new charge: their seat is not to be padded during the summer break, there will be no increase in leg-room or any addition of central heating.
Moreover, this is not the end of the extra cost. A pernicious additional charge is there in the small print, overlooked by many who automatically renew year on year. For the privilege of buying a season pass, holders are obliged to buy tickets for every home cup game.
Now many of them may wish to. But the point is, from now on they will have to. Even if work or family circumstances prevent them from attending a midweek Carling Cup game, they are required to fork out for it. Thus, in effect, if United have a decent cup run, season tickets will be costing as much as £500 more than they did last term.
Where all this extra money is going to is simple: it is to pay down the Glazers' mountainous debt. That plus financing the purchase of the new players whose presence is absolutely essential to maintaining a saleable product. In other words, far from being proven wrong by what has been happening recently, what the anti-Glazer movement said all along is coming to pass: it is the fans who are buying the club for a set of owners they were never consulted about in the first place. The only choice they have in the issue is to walk away and no longer support their team.
Before followers of rival teams snigger too hard into their beer, this is precisely the threat to Manchester City diehards should the Thais take over, or Arsenal fans if the Americans move in. Don't be fooled by glitzy promises of new investment. The only investment the new style of foreign owner makes is in the initial purchase. For everything else, there's the fans.'
Article 1
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_united/s/1008/1008808_glazer_protesters_were_right.html
Glazer protesters 'were right'
Stuart Brennan - Comment
11/ 6/2007
I'LL bet those United fans who protested about the Glazer takeover feel really stupid now.
How many times have you heard that said over the past fortnight?
Actually, those United fans who protested long and hard about the occupation of their club feel more justified than ever that they were right to stand up to what amounts to an insidious threat not just to Manchester United, but to English football, and even European football, in particular.
The fact that United have just won the Premiership in thrilling style, have splashed out on three players who could boost them from top English team to a European super-power once more, and continue to play in front of packed houses, is irrelevant.
The argument was never about that.
If you truly think that the Glazer takeover was a good thing, try asking the people who can no longer afford to go and watch their beloved team, on top of 12 per cent price increases in 2006, 14 per cent price increases in 2007, and the introduction of the compulsory automatic cup ticket scheme.
And then consider where this is leading. Talk to people in the Glazer camp and one thing becomes crystal clear - the economic cleansing of Old Trafford is not yet over.
There will be more price increases, more ways of screwing every last penny out of the support, until there is a threat of empty seats. Then the Glazer family will either ease off or cut and run.
United's response is that ticket prices still represent good value for money, and that there is a 14,000-strong waiting list for season tickets.
That last point is a sickening reminder of where United fans now stand. If you don't like it, clear off because we will find someone else to take your place.
United are no longer interested in their traditional fan base. Your average Joe from Stretford turns up at five to three, cheers on the team and then goes home for his tea and a couple of pints in his local boozer. All you get out of that particular economic unit is the price of his ticket.
But if you can get rid of him, and replace him with an economic unit called Henry from Surrey, the club also gets money from his Megastore shopping spree, dining at Red Cafe, museum visit, hotel stay and so on.
Shackles
It makes perfect business sense in the short term, get rid of the old fans, bring in McFans.
And if, or when, the football boom starts to grind to a halt as the yuppies find a new craze, it is the traditional support to whom United will turn, to find that they have discovered the joys of FC United, bird- watching, or DIY on a Saturday afternoon.
When the battle raged over the rights and wrongs of the takeover two years ago, the pro-Glazer lobby said that the family would bring a wealth of business nous, a pedigree of sporting success with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and would free the club from the shackles of reporting its every move to the Stock Exchange.
Those people are now smugly pronouncing themselves right, but that was never the issue.
The title success this season was achieved despite the Glazers, not because of them. It was entirely down to the genius of Sir Alex Ferguson and the enduring quality of the likes of Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs.
And the money that has been splashed on Nani, Anderson and Owen Hargreaves is not the Glazers' money. They have not put a penny into Manchester United - the money the club has been spending has been from its support, is a result of last year's windfalls from the sales of Ruud van Nistelrooy and Jon Obi Mikel, and from the unexpected bonanza from the sale of overseas TV rights.
What the Glazers have done is take £44m OUT of the club, to pay some of the interest on the debts they incurred to buy United. That money could have been used to peg back prices.
It is curious that at a time which should have been one of great exhilaration for United fans, and then bringing in interesting new players, the internet was full of cries of anguish.
I wrote an article two years ago which claimed that the Glazer era might just coincide with a new era of trophy success, but that many of the club's traditional support would be left with their noses pressed against the window, watching the party going on in what used to be their house.
This is not a `told-you-so' but a warning - the situation will continue to get worse.
Glazer protesters 'were right'
Stuart Brennan - Comment
11/ 6/2007
I'LL bet those United fans who protested about the Glazer takeover feel really stupid now.
How many times have you heard that said over the past fortnight?
Actually, those United fans who protested long and hard about the occupation of their club feel more justified than ever that they were right to stand up to what amounts to an insidious threat not just to Manchester United, but to English football, and even European football, in particular.
The fact that United have just won the Premiership in thrilling style, have splashed out on three players who could boost them from top English team to a European super-power once more, and continue to play in front of packed houses, is irrelevant.
The argument was never about that.
If you truly think that the Glazer takeover was a good thing, try asking the people who can no longer afford to go and watch their beloved team, on top of 12 per cent price increases in 2006, 14 per cent price increases in 2007, and the introduction of the compulsory automatic cup ticket scheme.
And then consider where this is leading. Talk to people in the Glazer camp and one thing becomes crystal clear - the economic cleansing of Old Trafford is not yet over.
There will be more price increases, more ways of screwing every last penny out of the support, until there is a threat of empty seats. Then the Glazer family will either ease off or cut and run.
United's response is that ticket prices still represent good value for money, and that there is a 14,000-strong waiting list for season tickets.
That last point is a sickening reminder of where United fans now stand. If you don't like it, clear off because we will find someone else to take your place.
United are no longer interested in their traditional fan base. Your average Joe from Stretford turns up at five to three, cheers on the team and then goes home for his tea and a couple of pints in his local boozer. All you get out of that particular economic unit is the price of his ticket.
But if you can get rid of him, and replace him with an economic unit called Henry from Surrey, the club also gets money from his Megastore shopping spree, dining at Red Cafe, museum visit, hotel stay and so on.
Shackles
It makes perfect business sense in the short term, get rid of the old fans, bring in McFans.
And if, or when, the football boom starts to grind to a halt as the yuppies find a new craze, it is the traditional support to whom United will turn, to find that they have discovered the joys of FC United, bird- watching, or DIY on a Saturday afternoon.
When the battle raged over the rights and wrongs of the takeover two years ago, the pro-Glazer lobby said that the family would bring a wealth of business nous, a pedigree of sporting success with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and would free the club from the shackles of reporting its every move to the Stock Exchange.
Those people are now smugly pronouncing themselves right, but that was never the issue.
The title success this season was achieved despite the Glazers, not because of them. It was entirely down to the genius of Sir Alex Ferguson and the enduring quality of the likes of Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs.
And the money that has been splashed on Nani, Anderson and Owen Hargreaves is not the Glazers' money. They have not put a penny into Manchester United - the money the club has been spending has been from its support, is a result of last year's windfalls from the sales of Ruud van Nistelrooy and Jon Obi Mikel, and from the unexpected bonanza from the sale of overseas TV rights.
What the Glazers have done is take £44m OUT of the club, to pay some of the interest on the debts they incurred to buy United. That money could have been used to peg back prices.
It is curious that at a time which should have been one of great exhilaration for United fans, and then bringing in interesting new players, the internet was full of cries of anguish.
I wrote an article two years ago which claimed that the Glazer era might just coincide with a new era of trophy success, but that many of the club's traditional support would be left with their noses pressed against the window, watching the party going on in what used to be their house.
This is not a `told-you-so' but a warning - the situation will continue to get worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)