ULTIMATELY, unfair as it may seem, Malcolm Glazer’s fate will not be decided by Manchester United shareholders, hooded education committees, independent supporters or Tony Lloyd, MP for Manchester Central. Whether United’s new owner is on his way to his next billion or has just made the worst call since Nick Leeson woke up one morning in Singapore and announced that he felt lucky is in the hands of one man. Sir Alex Ferguson, same as always.
For all the highfalutin talk of leveraged debt, delisting, hedge funds and television rights, Glazer’s takeover has football’s essential requirement at its heart: results.
When Ian Todd, Nike’s vice-president of sports marketing, broke cover at the weekend, he did not once mention the threat of consumer boycotts or adverse publicity that have been central to the militant campaign of the disenfranchised since Glazer’s dollars hit town (the lad himself being somewhat slower to arrive). No, Todd talked of United’s failure to win a trophy this season and speculated on the possibility of a poor 12 months ending with the club failing to make the Champions League proper. Were that to be the case, he hinted, Nike’s deal with United would float belly-up.
So it goes. Some football matches may be breathlessly unpredictable, but the game itself never alters. No manager has ever been dismissed, even if caught with his hand in the till, if his team are winning. No corporate sponsor has ever withdrawn on a matter of principle from a team that are top of the league.
Business is business. When Saddam Hussein’s son was torturing and humiliating the poor unfortunates of Iraqi football, he still managed to get kit. Arsenal removed George Graham over allegations of corruption, but not before his team had gone four months without a league win at Highbury and had lost in the FA Cup to Millwall. Glenn Hoddle’s theories on the disabled were always barking mad, it was just the form of his players that changed. Glazer may have the most astonishing business mind this side of the tailor who has consistently sold Terry Wogan jackets that are a size too small for 20 years, but it will matter not one jot if Ferguson cannot rediscover his Midas touch.
This is why the manager’s position at United is now so utterly compelling. The next year will decide whether he has the strongest, safest job in football or is merely its biggest lame duck. Unavoidably, he is now at the centre of the political subplot of the Glazer takeover. Right now, the new owners need him more than he needs them, but that cherished status has a shelf life of precisely one lousy season.
As it stands, Ferguson’s presence is crucial to any hope that Glazer has of winning over the section of supporters not already convinced of his iniquity. By announcing that he will stay as manager and work with the Glazers, with the priority of securing funds to improve the team, Ferguson represents as close as the new owners will get to credible endorsement.
There are those who think that the manager should have walked away out of solidarity with the Stretford End or on a point of principle, but it is too late for that. Ferguson, a high-profile socialist, has been exceedingly happy to exist, thrive within and benefit from a Premiership system that is Thatcherite laissez-faire capitalism at its most extreme. If he was comfortable with that, there is no reason why he should not also be at ease with the sincere market force that is the hostile takeover.
Yet there is a Catch-22. By staying, Ferguson also erodes his secret weapon, the unswerving loyalty of the fans. He now becomes The Man Who Worked With Glazer. That is not to say that he is no longer revered, more that an emotional attachment that compelled supporters to stand dutifully by his side through the fall- out with John Magnier and J. P. McManus, even when to the outside world all parties had clearly acted less than properly, will have worn thin.
Were another disappointing season to follow, with the inevitable speculation that this could be Ferguson’s last in charge, the hardcore rump that would have regarded such statements as sacrilege a year ago may be more inclined to shrug its shoulders and mutter that what goes around comes around.
Glazer will then, whether by accident or design, have manoeuvred a situation in which he can sack Mr Unsackable without there being rioting in the streets (well, no more than usual). He is either outrageously lucky or very astute, once again.
Very early in the takeover saga, City analysts were saying that there was no doubt that Glazer would get United, because of a unique set of circumstances.
Cubic Expression, the investment vehicle of Magnier and McManus, would have to sell, the logic went, because if it did not, it would be perceived that the deal had collapsed because of pressure from the fans and United would therefore be considered too volatile to be worthy of a takeover for five years at least. As a result, the share price would crumple, which meant that Magnier and McManus had to take Glazer’s offer or wipe almost one third from their investment. The irony being that the louder the supporters shouted, the more inevitable the deal became.
Did Glazer know this? Almost certainly. Is he also aware of the complexities surrounding Ferguson? What do you think? From now on, let us presume that Glazer spends very few waking hours in a state of naivety or surprise.
This week, an alleged sports business expert from The Wall Street Journal went on ESPN, the American television network, and showed the fine understanding of English football from that side of the water that rightly frightens the life out of United fans. He referred to the club as a franchise and said that European “soccer” needed to join the modern business world by getting the most profit from its product. He then cited the way two or three big teams dominate in England, comparing it unfavourably with American sport.
This is palpable nonsense. For United to increase revenue under Glazer, they would have to break the collective television agreement, which would then greatly disadvantage the smaller clubs. The Wall Street Journal cannot have it both ways. More likely, Glazer has an eye on foreign rights, via internet broadband and pay-per-view, a market in its infancy. Yet Chelsea’s success (and now Liverpool’s) will greatly affect United’s share. Fans abroad are fickle. They like winners. We come back to results.
America’s view of Glazer is interesting, though, if only for the tips it provides on how to run an effective campaign of resistance. In conversation with the commercial manager of the Boston Red Sox baseball team recently, he opined that the proposed season-ticket boycott is unlikely to be troubling the new boss.
Research conducted by sports franchises in the United States indicates that the most loyal, long-serving customers spend less per head on merchandise than any other group of supporters. This is understandable: those who can measure their devotion in decades will feel less need to prove it with a Cristiano Ronaldo bedspread. So Glazer may fancy the prospect of new money sloshing around Old Trafford and going wide-eyed in the club shop. Perhaps he does not even mourn the loss of the supporters most likely to follow the club through the bad times as well as the good — he knows that there will be 67,000 at the ground for the first match of next season and, provided that United are successful, that number will remain.
Whichever way we travel around the subject, we always end up at the same point: results. Worryingly, Glazer has constructed a vastly complex, highly aggressive £790 million business plan that, at its root, is no stronger than the consistency of Ruud van Nistelrooy, the longevity of Roy Keane, the loyalty of Ronaldo, the coolness of Wayne Rooney, the personal responsibility of Rio Ferdinand and the ability of Ferguson to pull these disparate strands together. In the end, it is not Shareholders United who could bring Glazer to his knees, it is Real Madrid, ageing legs and Jody Morris’s wedding.
- E-mail Martin Samuel at aogy90@dial.pipex.com
