Very interesting stuff PB....
Malcolm Glazer, the family man………
1. Malcolm’s father Abraham deserted from the Russian army and emigrated to America in 1915. Malcolm apparently hates this being mentioned in the press and this could be a reason why he does not give up a fight until he has been completely and absolutely defeated and ground into the dust.
2. Abraham died when Malcolm was 15. Malcolm took on his father’s watch repair business and worked seven days a week. In five years, he had the capital to start buying property and from there he moved into trailer parks.
3. When Malcolm’s mother Hannah died in 1980, she left an estate worth $1m. Litigation erupted soon after, when Malcolm’s brother Jerome fell out with a brother-in-law.
4. The court battle over the will ensued, passing through six judges and has gone on for an incredible 24 years. Glazer claimed his sisters were jealous that he had made their mother rich. But the case shines an unflattering light on him.
5. When asked for documents, he delivered 103 boxes of randomly filed statements that took five people three weeks to reassemble. Under cross examination he repeatedly claimed ignorance on simple business matters and said “I don’t remember” 250 times.
6. At one point when the opposing attorney left the room the stenographer recorded Glazer saying: “We have got to keep going until there is no money in this estate.” He has said he meant that his sisters were intent on running down the estate. In 1986 he was ordered to pay fees of $268,299 and a judge said his “intentional and prolonged non-compliance with the court’s reasonable orders” had cost his sisters.
7. According to The Guardian: “Glazer's 60-year business career, incorporating property, fish, fast food restaurants, local television stations and nursing homes, has been punctuated with minor court cases. Some are bizarre, even by the standards of America's litigation-happy culture.
8. Soon after the Tampa Bay takeover, residents on a trailer park accused Glazer's holding company of illegally charging an extra $5 a month for keeping a pet and $3 for each resident beyond the first two. Glazer eventually dropped the fees, but not before incurring acres of bad publicity and was dubbed the ‘slumlord’.”
9. At his East Avenue and Forest Lawn mobile home parks in Rochester, New York, residents complained constantly about the poor conditions he kept them in. The tenants, many old and poor, formed a pressure group to fight him.
10. Lawyer Paul Marasco, who represented Glazer's tenants in a successful lawsuit against Glazer, said: "He was charging tenants extra for having pets and even having babies. It was all against the law but he still fought it every inch of the way. We thought what he was doing was wrong so took him on and the courts vindicated our fight. I'm glad we won and a lot of people got some money back."
11. Today parts of Glazer's trailer parks resemble waste dumps - with rusting toys and discarded rubbish littering the cramped space between lots. Many mobile homes are boarded up and have become a magnet for *** users, residents say.
12. Carl Feinstock, a Rochester lawyer, took Glazer to court when one of his clients was injured at a Glazer-owned trailer park. Feinstock says: “He didn’t keep up the parks. He cut his costs at the expense of the residents.”
13. One resident, Lawrence Conway, said: “He does nothing for us.” Conway says his park is often short of light bulbs and that Glazer’s company has consistently raised rents above the market rate.
Malcolm moves up in the world……….
14. Having concentrated on property in his early years, initially buying rented homes in Rochester, he reinvented himself as a corporate raider in the go-go stock markets of the 1980s. (Source: The Guardian)
15. Recurring themes in Glazer's career - ones that echo in the assault on Manchester United - are his willingness to employ heavy borrowings and efforts to maximise the bargaining power of relatively small investments.
16. Glazer’s first attempt at a takeover was in 1984 when he tried to buy the bankrupt US Conrail system. He offered $7.6bn, though he only actually had $100m of his own. Attempts to raise the difference eventually failed. Wonder why.
17. Glazer’s main wealth comes from controlling stakes in two US public companies: Zapata, a holding company originally started by George Bush Snr, in which the Glazer family has 50 per cent of the stock, and Omega Protein, a fish oil maker in which Zapata has 60 per cent. Glazer also owns a private company, First Allied Corporation, which has interests in commercial property such as shopping malls.
18. Reputed to be America’s 278th richest man (Forbes Rich List 2004), three-quarters of his estimated $1billion fortune is tied up in the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with a value thought to be more than $700 million. But the rules covering the ownership of teams in the NFL mean he cannot use his holding as collateral for a loan and he has pledged not to sell the team. Roman Abramovich he isn’t.
19. In 1988, he bought 10% of Formica Corporation, the then-unfashionable work surface company, and threatened to bid for it before selling the stake to a higher bidder. (Source: The Guardian)
20. A US District Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Glazer in connection with his failed attempt to acquire Formica Corp. Glazer, along with several of his family members and businesses, sued Formica and its CEO, Vincent Langone.
21. Glazer employed similar tactics at Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufacturer, where he built a 6.9% stake, generated some takeover fever and then sold at a profit. When the motorcycle maker was struggling, Glazer used his stockholding to air his complaints about management and threaten a hostile takeover. It drove up the share price - and just as analysts were predicting Glazer to make a fully-fledged takeover, he quietly sold his entire shareholding and walked away with the profits.
22. Harley Davidson Inc said it filed a suit against Malcolm Glazer. Filed in US District Court in the Eastern Wisconsin District, the suit charges that the 13D Glazer filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announcing his 6.24% stake in the company, failed to announce his intention to increase his stake in the company to 15%, Harley said. The suit also alleges Glazer failed to disclose his violation of the prior notice requirements of the Hart-Scott Rodino rules in a second SEC filing announcing his intention to acquire a 15% stake in Harley Davidson.
23. In the 1990s, he made a killing in junk bonds, a feat that will have required high nerve and astute analysis. Junk bonds were regarded as the toxic waste of the financial system after a series of scandals and defaults. Glazer judged that things could not get much worse, and is reckoned to have roughly doubled his $80m investment as economic recovery ensured that not all companies defaulted on their junk bonds. (Source: The Guardian)
24. An investigation by the US magazine Business Week in 2004 revealed that the SEC probed sharp increases in the value of both Zapata and Omega stock, raising the value of the Glazer family investment by $50m. The movements tended to coincide with significant purchases of United stock by Malcolm Glazer, though there was no evidence they were linked.
25. The SEC is understood to have subpoenaed Theodore Roxford, a mysterious corporate raider who has admitted to being behind trading in Zapata shares, which sent them soaring from $22 a share in November 2002 to over $63.00 13 months later, and in Omega, where shares rose from under $6.00 to more than $8.00. John Held, the general counsel at Omega, has admitted that the SEC requested company documents late last year.
26. When asked, Roxford claimed that he was acting for a group of investors with stock in Zapata and when further asked whether those investors might be connected to the Glazers, Roxford did not deny it.
27. Neither Zapata nor any of the Glazer family was prepared to comment on the SEC investigation, although Avram Glazer has said in the past that neither he nor his father has had any dealings with Mr. Roxford.
28. So why would investors or phantom bidders push up the shares despite serious doubts about the bidders' credibility? Analyst Timothy Ramey says that he assumed both offers came from "blatant stock manipulators" out to make a quick buck. Investors were less suspicious, he says, "because it's hard for the market not to react to the words 'takeover bid.' The market always trades on speculation."
29. Another lawsuit, filed by Robert Strougo, a shareholder of Omega, claimed that the Glazers, including Malcolm's son Avram (Zapata's chief executive) and daughter Darcie (a Zapata director), breached their fiduciary duties by not properly considering a so-called buyout offer sent via e-mail to Zapata. This tale gets twisted when it was disclosed that the supposed buyer, a Florida partnership, is run by the self-same Theodore Roxford, who calls himself a ‘corporate con artist’.
30. Ramping up a share price is not illegal in the US, but it is not regarded as good business practice. Neither is the practice known as ‘greenmail’, the acquisition of shares with the threat of a bid or change of management, usually followed by an exit at a profit.
31. In 1995, Glazer attempted to sell a company called Houlihan's Restaurants Inc to Zapata. Glazer himself held a 73% stake in Houlihan’s, and was set to make $59m from the deal. The proposal was dropped after a lawsuit brought by Zapata’s minority shareholders, claiming that he was attempting to enrich himself at the expense of Zapata.
32. In the mid-90s, Avram Glazer persuaded his father to allow him to play with his own train set – a internet division of Zapata called “Zap.com” which he promised would provide untold riches in the new dot.com world and turn fish oil producer Zapata into a player in the internet game.
33. In 1998, Zapata even launched an unsolicited all-paper (i.e. payment in Zapata shares) offer for up-and-coming internet portals Excite and WhoWhere for $1.68 billion and $400 million respectively. Both offers were made by FAX – and unsurprisingly rejected with derision. Zapata’s share price rocketed on the back of this news
34. Zapata’s ventures into the internet world failed miserably, as did many others. But few were so comprehensively criticised by insiders – “[Avram] Glazer knew nothing about the internet”, said Bowe. “His ambition was to build up Zap and then cash in by selling shares in a stock-market float”. “Avram had this dream of being a big swinging *** of the internet,' she said. But his ambition was hampered by an 'almost surreal incompetence'.
35. Bowe remembered how in awe he seemed of his father. “He’s pathetic. Such a daddy’s boy,” said Bowe. “This is the one thing he had tried to do on his own and he couldn’t have done it worse. I really hope Manchester United find someone else.”
36. Zap.com proved to be a money drain for Zapata, which owns 98% of Zap.com. The company blames its Internet operations for $5.7 million in losses for the nine months ended on Sept. 30. The company lost $20.3 million, or 85 cents per share, on revenue of $93.7 million in 1999.
37. After the collapse of Zap.com, Zapata faced a series of lawsuits from investors. Lawyer Tom Ajamie had worked for the Glazers for seven years and helped to defend the cases, but the relationship ended after the Glazers stopped paying his fees. 'Malcolm Glazer refused to meet me or discuss the bills. He wouldn't tell me where the problem was,' he said. Ajamie started legal proceedings. 'He is the only client I have ever had to sue,' said Ajamie.
38. In 2003, Gates Capital Management, a minor shareholder in Zapata, unsuccessfully tried to get the directors to liquidate the company, arguing that it had made failed investments over seven years in the internet, junk bonds, pay phones, Caribbean supermarkets and nurseries, losing $45m in the process.
The Glazers and their extensive involvement and love for football (UK variety)
39. As far as is known, Glazer has never been to Manchester, let alone ever seen Manchester United play.
40. Glazer’s PR people say that the family interest in football is mainly held by Glazer’s son Joel. Apparently Joel once shared a flat with a Spurs fan.
41. Joel also recently told a Tampa journalist that he was “concerned about United’s midfield”.
42. The Glazers nearly bought Major League Soccer franchise Tampa Bay Mutiny in 2001, but apparently the asking price of somewhere north of $5 million was too high. The franchise collapsed soon afterwards and the team no longer exists. Mutiny played at Raymond James Stadium, where the Bucs play, and the Glazers would have controlled 100% of parking, concessions and ticket sales revenue through their ownership of the stadium.
43. Three years ago, Glazer attempted to buy the Swiss football club FC Zurich. He told its president, Sven Hotz “When I take over, nobody has a say apart from me”. Herr Hotz politely declined the offer.
44. Errr, ………………..that’s it.
The Glazers and their extensive involvement and love for football (US variety)
45. Glazer bought the struggling American football team the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1995 for $192m, after it had notched up a long strong of losses both financial and on the pitch. His first act was to fire the manager.
46. American football is very different to the UK variety, where the fans’ have a passionate love for their club, its heritage and traditions, which is strongly community based and runs down the generations. American football is regarded more as a business which provides entertainment, like the movies, a nice day out for the family.
47. Glazer tried to buy four other American sports franchises before getting the Buccaneers.
48. Glazer goes for the jugular. When he offered to buy the Buccaneers, he promised the Tampa authorities he would go halves on a new stadium with them. After getting control, he backed out of the deal, and gave Tampa two years to build it themselves or he would move the team to a city that would.
49. Tampa caved in, and city taxpayers are still paying a half-cent sales tax to fund the stadium’s construction. Ex-Tampa mayor Bill Poe estimates that this has cost the City some $400 million in all.
50. Soon after buying the Buccaneers, Glazer arranged for his own restaurant company Houlihan’s to buy the naming rights for the team’s new stadium, at a cost of $10m, despite the firm having just two restaurants in Florida, and none in Tampa Bay itself.
51. After completing the building of the new stadium, Glazer so upset some Tampa Buccaneers fans that in 1999 civil court action was pursued by a group of longstanding Buccaneers season ticket holders who felt they'd been unfairly downgraded to inferior seats by the move to the new stadium.
52. Glazer’s response was for the club to counter-sue the fans for defamation. The case was settled out-of-court and as part of the agreement, the dissenting fans were offered a choice of new seats.
53. Instances like those prompted the local Tampa Bay Tribune to accuse Glazer of using the city as his "personal urinal".
54. Much is made of the fact that the Buccaneers won a Super Bowl championship in 2003. But the team had won nothing before that and have won nothing since and is now back to its reputation as a loser team.
55. Glazer’s single trophy pales in comparison with the achievements of United under the 19-year tenure of Sir Alex Ferguson and the present regime.
56. Some Bucs fans point to Glazer’s tendency to interfere with matters better handled by the management staff. Tampa Bay's former head coach, Tony Dungy, was by every measure a success with the Bucs, yet he was constantly hounded and harassed by the Glazers to fire his offensive assistant coaches (David Shula and Les Steckel). Why should we believe their promises not to interfere with football matters at Manchester United?
57. Less than two years after winning the Super Bowl the Glazer family has directed its team's own downfall through a series of dubious decisions that will certainly concern United supporters. The successful and popular general manager Rich McKay was replaced by Bruce Allen of the Oakland Raiders and many fan favourites on the field were allowed to leave in favour of ageing veterans. The results, or lack of them, have annoyed some fans, who admit United might find themselves in a similarly alarming position if Glazer becomes their new owner.
58. "I'd be worried if I was a Manchester United fan because I think his interest is in business rather than the sport itself," said the Buccaneers fan and Tampa native Jim Freeman. "His interest is in winning also, but mainly because it increases the worth of the business. They [the Glazers] are into the pride of ownership and the involvement you have as an NFL owner, which is a very exclusive club. It's a power thing. As far as soccer goes I don't think they're any more interested in Manchester United than I am."" (Source: Guardian)
59. The Glazers have raised ticket prices EVERY year since they have owned the Tamp Bay Buccaneers. Bucs ticket prices, if you include every element of the pricing structure, are now among the highest in the NFL. Their ‘club seats’ season ticket required buyers to commit to TEN years of ownership and anyone who withdraws before the period is up is liable to pay a penalty.
60. Prices of everything across the board at the Raymond James stadium have also gone through the roof – including concessions such as parking, food, drink and other merchandise.
61. The Buccaneers players have had to travel 80 miles to a training ground because their existing Tampa training facilities were infested with rats.
62. Work has started on a new training centre, the defunct Tampa Bay Center which closed in 2002 and was purchased later that year by First Allied Corp., a real estate concern headed by Bucs owner Malcolm Glazer, for $22.8 million in late 2002. True to form, the Bucs are entitled to $12 million in local sales tax revenue for construction of the facility. The City continues to pay the bills for their privately-owned and profitable team.
63. Allen St John, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, said, "He is different from other sports franchise owners in that he is very much a businessman and he is proud of that," says St John. "At a certain point, many of them are almost embarrassed to talk about how much money they have made, whereas Glazer is completely unapologetic about that. For him, it is not just about sporting victory but also about business victory. He is just as happy to make money on something as win a championship."
What they have said about the Glazers…………..
64. A US judge reviewing Glazer’s business practices famously branded him "a snake in sheep's clothing."
65. Glazer's sister commented, "People in Britain should be very wary of him. I don't think he is fit to own such a famous and historic club as Manchester United. If he gets his hands on it the only one who will benefit is Malcolm.”
66. Eric Cantona said, “If he [Glazer] were to come here, we would lose everything.”
67. Ole Gunnar Solskjaer declared, “I’m absolutely on the side of the fans who don’t want him at the club. I think United is in very good hands as it is today.”
68. Sir Alex Ferguson said, “We don’t want the club to be in anyone else’s hands.”
69. "Of course we sympathise with the views of the fans," said Ryan Giggs. "As far as they're concerned, there's nothing wrong with the way the club is being run."
70. Rio Ferdinand said, "A lot of people want the club's interest to be with people who have grown up with the club and have got its interests at heart.
71. Sir Bobby Charlton said of the Glazer bid: “I can’t say much about that, but what I can say is this – Manchester United is an institution which is protected by its fans and by the Board who have the club’s best interests at heart”.
72. Pat Crerand and Sandy Busby, men who understand the true heritage of Manchester United, told Shareholders United, “Your cause is just.”
73. UK Sports Minister Richard Caborn said in reply to a parliamentary question from Tony Lloyd MP in January 2005: “I was pleased to read the statement made by the chief executive of Manchester United, David Gill, when he said any decision would be taken reflecting both present shareholders and future shareholders. I think that is important to a club like Manchester United who have a tremendous role to play not just in the game, but in the community as well.”
74. Bill Poe, the former mayor of Tampa says Glazer has been a bad owner for the city. He has, he says, “taken every advantage that he could have taken and put very little back in”. Poe is so incensed he has broken a 10-year silence to warn United fans against the Bucs’ boss. “The British government and its citizens have been great allies and friends of America,” said Poe. “I would question whether I would want someone like Glazer representing American business in Britain.”
75. Tom Ajamie is a lawyer who worked for the Glazer family for seven years - until they fell out over unpaid fees. He said recently: “He [Glazer] is very aggressive. He will do what he sets out to do. He is determined to take over Manchester United and will continue until he is absolutely defeated. He is hard nosed. On the upside he is orientated towards winning. There is no question about that. But he is very much driven by money and there is no question he will drive up ticket prices. He did it at Tampa Bay and he also extracted very severe concessions from the City of Tampa Bay, tax breaks and other types of monetary concessions. At one point he even threatened to pull the team out of Tampa Bay which was really disheartening for the whole city because they love their football team. He doesn't care whether fans like him or not. I guarantee you that. He will do what he wants to do. Other people's opinions are the last things that concern him."
76. Ajamie took Glazer to court but the case was settled before it got to court, with Ajamie receiving 85 cents for every dollar owed. “If he had asked for that discount in the first place, I would have given it to him,” said Ajamie. He said that during his time with the Glazers all serious negotiations took place with Malcolm. Other former advisers said Malcolm preferred to operate behind the scenes and that his sons checked everything they did with their father first.
77. Glazer's sister comments about the litigation over their mother’s will: “The family were all so close but he just made mincemeat of them all. He made sure they ended up with virtually nothing. He would rather have spent the money on court fees than give them a cent. It was incredibly mean, but also incredibly sad.”
78. Glazer's sister comments "No one he has ever worked with has a good word to say about him. He can appear very charming but it's all a front."
79. Brother-in-law Morris Krovetz said: "Malcolm Glazer is not a man - he's an animal. He's done so much damage to the family that it pains me to even mention his name. As far as I'm concerned he no longer exists." Mr Krovetz, who was married to Glazer's sister Evelyn, blames his brother-in-law for destroying his wife's life.
80. Marisa Bowe, former editor-in-chief of the pioneering internet magazine Word.com, first met Avram Glazer in 1998 when Zapata bailed out her company. Word was one of 30 websites that Zap bought. 'He was an idiot,' said Bowe, ''and I'm not the sort of person who uses the word idiot lightly.'
81. (Sir Bobby Robson in the Mail on Sunday): “Whereas Chelsea welcomed Roman Abramovich because they were skint, Manchester United don’t need Glazer – he needs them. United already spend millions on the best players, such as Rio Ferdinand and Wayne Rooney, and want to expand their capacity to 75,000 to cope with demand from fans.”
82. (Bobby Robson again): “It’s not in the best interests of the club to sell out to the man from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. In fact, the people who might benefit most from Glazer taking over are Arsenal and Chelsea, because I’m sure United would lose their position as the No.1 club.”
83. (Bobby Robson yet again): “If the shareholders let Glazer take over, will ticket prices go up? Will Old Trafford be renamed or even sold? Anything is possible and that is what’s worrying. United are more than just a football club. They are the football club – to tens of millions in every continent.”
84. (More Sir Bobby): “But United don’t need rescuing, Glazer won’t care about the heritage of United, just the bank balance.”
Why Manchester United does not need Glazer….
85. Manchester United is a highly successful football club, operating at the pinnacle of
European football. United does not need a new owner to improve its sporting success,
especially one who will load the club with debt in order to acquire it.
86. Manchester United is also a successful and profitable company. It is already the No 1 richest sporting club in the world (Deloitte & Touche). It does not need a new owner to maintain and improve its position in this respect.
87. Malcolm Glazer is promising to ‘bring success to Manchester United’ – his NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, finished bottom of their league this year and next to bottom the previous year, having won 1 trophy in 8 years under Glazer’s ownership.
88. Manchester United is a global name in football and sport – the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is a local franchise and the Glazer family have absolutely no experience of running an international company, let alone a global sports icon such as United.
89. Malcolm Glazer’s acquisition of a major shareholding in United has so far contributed absolutely nothing but destabilisation, speculation and distraction to the club. He appears to be content to pursue his aggressive and dangerous business plan with no apparent concern for the effect on the club, the community, the team or the supporters.
90. Glazer has actually borrowed to fund his share purchases up to now – some estimate as much as £100 million. So his family foundation is already in debt to the banks before he starts to borrow huge sums to make his bid.
91. Manchester United is a debt-free company, with cash in the bank and making substantial profits year on year. Glazer would borrow huge amounts to buy United, turning the club into a debt-laden organisation overnight and requiring at least a doubling of annual profits for the next 5 to 7 years in order to repay debts and give Glazer a return on his “investment”.
92. This pressure on the finances of United would result in huge price increases across the board at Old Trafford, the selling of the naming rights to Old Trafford, possible sale & leaseback of the ground, if things did not go well, and generally turning United into a giant cash register for one man’s personal gain.
93. In the worst case scenario, United could collapse under the weight of the debt and end up like Leeds United.
94. A revised Glazer proposal in February 2005 was based on an alternative debt structure involving preference shares (described in some quarters as “debt in drag”). United’s board declared: “The Board believes that the nature and return requirements of this capital structure will put pressure on the business of Manchester United, particularly if Glazer's business plan was not met. The Board continues to believe that Glazer's business plan assumptions are aggressive and that the direct and indirect financial strain on the business could be damaging.”
95. Glazer does not like to be thwarted. When his initial leveraged ‘proposal’ was rejected by the United Board in October 2004, he exacted revenge at United’s AGM. His vote against the re-election of three United directors – legal adviser Maurice Watkins, new commercial director Andy Anson and non-executive director Philip Yea – resulted in them losing their places on the plc board.
96. His treatment of Watkins was particularly ruthless, since Watkins had incurred the displeasure of United’s fans and supporter shareholders by offloading shares that were bought by Glazer.
97. His stalking of Manchester United fits his past history, say former associates. “He likes to keep people on edge, to keep them guessing,” says one. Others might call it destabilisation, disruption, volatility and continued speculation which makes management of a club that much more difficult.
Why football does not need Malcolm Glazer
98. Glazer’s main interest in United seems to be the TV rights and media potential worldwide. It does not take a genius to realise that the break-up of the collective TV Premiership rights would be very profitable for United and the other 2 leading PL clubs Chelsea and Arsenal.
99. The need to drive revenues to repay loans taken out to acquire the club could ironically, given the fun that fans of other clubs have had at the expense of United’s, lead to the bankruptcy of their own clubs. In just over 2 years time, when the current TV deal runs out, any PL club with more than £30 million of debt, would face their TV income dropping by up to 80% and probable insolvency. Welcome to the world of Leeds United, City fans.
