[B]The Glazers as Owners[/B]

swooshboy

Band of Brothers
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
10,737
Location
London
Here's a link to a thread about Glazer in the the Tampa Bay Buccaneers forum.

http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=99464&highlight=Glazer

My reason for posting this is that I remember over the summer many people pointed to the Bucs as an example of what Glazer would do to our club. They were referred to as one of the worst teams in the NFL and Glazer was blamed for selling off the best players just to make a quick profit and refusing to invest in the team. Even though they had won the Superbowl under the Glazers, the majority of comments seemed to be "but look what has happened to them now".

After 5 games of the NFL season, the Bucs share the 2nd best record in the league and the following post from the forum paints the Glazers in a positive light:

I'm just glad they're spendy owners and not cheapo like the 49ers owners, among others. sure they're in it for the money, but they also apparently care about putting a quality product out there. one of the top stadiums in the league, nice rebranding witht he pewter and red, and they aren't too thrifty with players, they'll spend the cheese if they need to.

they look kinda odd, but hell, as long as they keep supporting the team financially as they have thus far, I couldn't care less.

Hopefully this thread can avoid retreading old ground, but The Bucs do not show any evidence of having been run into the ground, as many people claimed. I may not be a fan of the Glazers, but as has been pointed out in various posts, as soon as we became a PLC we ran the risk of someone buying us as an investment. Are there better potential owners? I'm sure there are. Are there worse potential owners? I'm sure there are too.

Their track record with the Bucs is not as bad as people made out over the summer and therefore makes me feel slightly more optomistic towards the future of our club.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
52,766
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
As knowledgeable posters who understand the NFL system have stated in the past, the NFL is a cyclical league. Teams have 1-3 good seasons, fall off, and arise again. Yesterday's 4-12 team is today's 11-5 division winner, and vice versa. Some teams manage to remain competitive for lengthy periods despite salary cap issues and free agency and other factors. Some teams are just managed very badly and suffer for years. The Bucs have a great defense and with 'Cadillac' Williams at RB, they've shown the ability to explode on offense.
 

The Hairdryer

Guest
MrMarcello said:
The Bucs have a great defense and with 'Cadillac' Williams at RB, they've shown the ability to explode on offense.
Click to expand...
Almost as bad a nickname as Paul "The Guv" Ince.
 

redfromcanada

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
827
People must understand the difference in structure between the NFL and football in general before evaluating Glazer's performance with United. The NFL is set up in such a way that with the draft system of distributing players throughout the league, poor teams benefit by getting the first choice of the best college players, hence their drafting of Carnell "Cadillac" Williams this year. They also have the monopoly on the best American football players in the world. Unless you are an extremely badly run franchise in the NFL, you cannot help but being competitive after a down period on the field. And whether or not the team is poor on the field, they always make money.

Contrary to this is how football operates worldwide. It is not run on a company basis like the NFL with franchises. Even though the Premier League operates as its own entity, make no mistake, each club serves as its own company and as such, has to compete with other clubs directly for players and revenues alike. The Glazer's have a much finer line between success and failure as a result. So their success with the Bucs will have little or nothing to do with their ability to succeed with United.

Are they still bad for United in my opinion? Until they show positive signs to maintain United as one of the world's best football clubs, then yes they are.
 

redfromcanada

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
827
The Hairdryer said:
Almost as bad a nickname as Paul "The Guv" Ince.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Incey annointed himself as the "Guv'nor", while Williams was given the name by a sportswriter while playing in high school in Alabama.
 

Ferguson

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
3,930
Location
Seoul, South Korea
Glazer is a Lithuanian Jewish immigrant ... maybe he can get a Slavic rivalry going with that Russian at Chelsea. It is funny to me how he is painted as an American cowboy by all these Brits when he is probably more European than American.
 

mu77

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
7,004
the NFL is a closed shop. it's not a league as much as it is a business that can move teams like buildings. mc football with a supersized TV contract,and a system that protects it's owners from f'n up too much.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
52,766
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Red Devil said:
I think the EPL is more of a stable league compared to the NFL. Teh fact that it would be next to impossible for EPL teams to pickup and move like NFL teams can.
Click to expand...
If England were the size of the US with more than 4 or 5 large metropolitan areas, English clubs would be more apt to relocate. If the NFL was confined to a geographical area the size of Texas, most teams would not relocate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.