Manchester United: How ‘scavenger’ Glazers bought club – and left Old Trafford ‘rusting’ and in a ‘mess’
It’s nearly 20 years since the American tycoon Malcolm Glazer bought his first stake in Manchester United – now his family’s controversial tenure at the club could finally be coming to an end.
Chants of “Love United, hate Glazers” are regularly heard at Old Trafford and news that the owners are exploring a sale will delight many United supporters.
Here, Sky News tells the story of the Glazers’ ownership of the Premier League club and explains why the family have been so unpopular with fans – even attracting criticism from one of their own star players, Cristiano Ronaldo, who left the club with immediate effect earlier today.
Malcolm Glazer took control of Man United in 2005. Pic: AP
Glazers buy Man Utd – and saddle club with debt
Malcolm Glazer owned the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, an American football team that were then the Super Bowl champions, when he began his investment in United in March 2003.
At the time, United had dominated the Premier League and were one of the most successful clubs in the world, winning an array of silverware under Sir Alex Ferguson.
Glazer took full control of United in June 2005, but the deal was hugely unpopular with fans because it was financed primarily through loans secured against the club’s assets.
Within a year of the leveraged buyout, Glazer had two strokes and his six children – Avram, Joel, Bryan, Kevin, Darcie and Edward – ran United, all of them sitting on the board of directors.
Avram Glazer, left, and Joel Glazer are executive co-chairmen of Manchester United
The Glazers’ £790m takeover loaded United with debt that is now around £500m. The club were debt-free before the takeover.
Fans have been enraged by the more than £1bn it has cost the Glazers to service the debt, while cashing in themselves by receiving dividends from the club.
Man United fans protest over Malcolm Glazer’s proposed takeover in 2004
Fan protests and FC United formed
The Glazer family’s first visit to Old Trafford ended in ugly and violent scenes in June 2005 as police clashed with supporters who had effectively barricaded United’s new owners inside the stadium.
Joel, Avram and Bryan Glazer reportedly had to be smuggled down the players’ tunnel and out of the ground in two police tactical aid vans for their own safety.
Police clear a barricade to allow a van, supposedly carrying Joel Glazer, to leave Old Trafford in 2005
The Glazers’ controversial takeover prompted a group of disaffected Man United supporters to form a new football club.
FC United began their first season in 2005-06 and now compete in the Northern Premier League Premier Division, the seventh tier of the English football league system.
Success on the pitch
Under the continued management of Sir Alex, United initially remained successful under the Glazers’ ownership, winning five Premier League titles in seven seasons between 2007 and 2013.
With star players Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney, United enjoyed a prolific three-year spell from 2007 to 2009, winning three Premier League titles, a Champions League trophy and the League Cup.
But fans’ anger at the Glazers remained.
Man United fans wave green and gold scarves in protest at the Glazers in 2010
Green and gold scarf campaign
In 2010, United fans began donning yellow and green scarves to protest against the Glazers’ ownership.
United are known for their famous red shirts, but the club was originally founded, in 1878, under the name Newton Heath Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Football Club, which played in a bold yellow and green strip.
At the height of the protests, former United player David Beckham put on a green and gold scarf that was thrown on to the pitch during his return to Old Trafford with AC Milan in 2010.
That night, Joel and Avram Glazer were inside the stadium but Beckham later distanced himself from the protest, saying the ownership of United was “not my business”.
Red Knights takeover bid
A group of wealthy supporters were expected to make a bid of about £1bn for United in 2010, despite United insisting the Glazer family owners would “not entertain any offers”.
The Red Knights group, which included former Football League chairman Keith Harris and Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neil, said that one of its priorities was to reduce debt levels at the club.
The proposed bid was put on hold after the group said media speculation of “inflated valuation aspirations” had hampered its plans.
Post-Ferguson problems
Since Sir Alex called time on his illustrious managerial career nearly 10 years ago, United’s form has gone downhill.
Despite appointing high-profile managers such as Jose Mourinho and Louis van Gaal, the club has failed to win the Premier League since 2013 – while spending more than £1bn on players in that time.
United have also not won a trophy since their Europa League triumph in 2017.
To make matters worse, arch rivals Manchester City and Liverpool have enjoyed huge success as they regularly compete for Premier League and Champions League titles.
Pic: AP
Malcolm Glazer death
Malcolm Glazer died in 2014 at the age of 85, having never visited Old Trafford during his ownership of the club.
Although he was a controversial figure in Manchester, tributes poured in from the US, where the businessman was hugely respected for turning Tampa Bay from a laughing stock into a Super Bowl-winning franchise.
After Glazer’s death, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said: “Malcolm Glazer was the guiding force behind the building of a Super Bowl-champion organisation.
European Super League anger
The Glazers attracted more fury from United fans after taking a leading role in attempts to form a European Super League last year.
United, along with Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham, caused outrage with their plans to join the breakaway competition, in which the founding members would be exempt from relegation.
The six English clubs had planned to set up the league with Spanish sides Atletico Madrid, Barcelona and Real Madrid and Italy’s AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus, in a group that some nicknamed the “dirty dozen”.
Fans stormed the Old Trafford pitch in May 2021
The proposal led to protests from football fans across England, with several hundred storming the Old Trafford pitch before United were due to play Liverpool, meaning the game had to be postponed.
After the clubs backed down Joel Glazer, who had been announced as a vice-chairman of the European Super League, “apologised unreservedly” to fans, saying: “We got it wrong.”
His brother Avram refused to apologise after Sky News confronted him in Florida.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky News questions Avram Glazer over Man Utd
After the scandal, United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward announced he would be leaving the club, having been an unpopular figure with fans after a series of expensive signings with precious little success.
Neville brands Glazers ‘scavengers’
Former Man United captain Gary Neville – who was a player at the club in 2005 when the Glazers took over – has been a vocal critic of the owners in recent months.
After the European Super League fiasco, Neville branded the Glazers “scavengers” who “need booting out of this football club and booting out of this country”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Gary Neville on the Glazers
“We have got to come together,” he told Sky Sports.
“It might be too late, there’ll be people at Manchester United, fans 15 years ago who will say it’s too late.
“It’s never too late, we have got to stop this. It is absolutely critical we do.”
Neville has claimed Old Trafford is “rusting”, with £1bn needed to rebuild the stadium, and the club is in a “mess”.
“When a business is failing and it’s not performing, it is the owners of that business [who are to blame],” Neville said after United were beaten 4-0 by Brentford this season.
“It is really simple. It is failing miserably.
“They took about £24m out of the club two months ago and they have now got a decrepit, rotting stadium, which is second-rate when it used to be the best in the world 15-20 years ago.
“You have got a football project where they haven’t got a clue.”
Neville said there has been a “toxic culture and atmosphere created at the club over a 10-year period” after the departures of Sir Alex and former United chief executive David Gill.
“It is a mess and it cannot carry on,” he added.
Ronaldo criticism
The latest high-profile criticism of the Glazers came from one of Manchester United’s very own star players.
Ronaldo launched a blistering attack on the club’s owners during an interview with Talk TV host Piers Morgan.
The Portugal star, who returned to United last year after 12 years away, claimed the Glazers “don’t care about the club” and said it was a “marketing club”.
“They will get money from the marketing – the sport, it’s, they don’t really care, in my opinion,” he said.
Ronaldo also claimed United had not progressed as a club since the departure of Sir Alex in 2013.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Ronaldo defends explosive interview
“Nothing changed. Surprisingly,” he said.
“Not only the pool, the jacuzzi, even the gym… Even some points, the technology, the kitchen, the chefs, which is, I appreciate, lovely persons.
“They stopped in a time, which surprised me a lot. I thought I will see different things… different, as I mentioned before, technology, infrastructure.
“But, unfortunately, we see many things that I used to see when I was 20, 21, 23. So, it surprised me a lot.”
Since the interview last week, the club’s lawyers had reportedly been looking at ways to bring Ronaldo’s time at the club to an end and on Tuesday it was announced that he was leaving “by mutual agreement, with immediate effect”.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Talk of sale and interest from Britain’s richest man
Bloomberg reported in August that the Glazer family were considering selling a minority stake in United and preliminary discussions had been held about bringing in a new investor.
It also emerged that one of Britain’s richest men, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a boyhood United fan and a proven investor in sport through his Ineos company, had expressed an interest in buying the club.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe expressed an interest in buying Manchester United
In October, he revealed he had met the Glazer family and was told they were not interested in selling Manchester United.
“I met Joel and Avram, and they are the nicest people,” Sir Jim said.
“They are proper gentlemen, and they don’t want to sell it. It is owned by the six children of the father and they don’t want to sell.”
Student protests against Israel’s war in Gaza continue to spread across the US, following last week’s arrest of more than 100 demonstrators at Columbia University.
There have been nearly 550 protest-related arrests in the past week at major US universities, according to a tally by news agency Reuters.
The students want universities to cut ties with companies helping Israel’s war in Gaza and, in some cases, with Israel itself.
Some universities have called in police to end the demonstrations, resulting in clashes and arrests, while others appear to be biding their time as the academic semester enters its final days.
Students at Columbia. Pic: Reuters
The University of Southern California cancelled its main graduation ceremony, set for 10 May, after the arrests of 93 people at the Los Angeles campus on Wednesday.
At Boston’s Emerson College, 108 people were arrested overnight with video showing students linking arms to resist officers, who then moved forcefully through the crowd, throwing some students to the ground.
University of Michigan. Pic: Reuters
George Washington University. Pic: Reuters
Student protester Ocean Muir said: “There were just more cops on all sides.
“It felt like we were being slowly pushed in and crushed.”
She said police lifted her by her arms and legs to carry her away and she was charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct.
At Emory University’s Atlanta campus, 28 people were detained and the local branch of activist group Jewish Voice For Peace said police used tear gas and tasers on protesters.
Police there admitted using “chemical irritants” but denied using rubber bullets.
Cheryl Elliott, Emory’s vice president for public safety, said the aim was to clear the area of a “disruptive encampment while holding individuals accountable to the law” but human rights groups questioned the “apparent use of excessive force” against free speech.
Charges were dropped, meanwhile, against 46 of the 60 people detained by police at the University of Texas.
Harvard University. Pic: Reuters
Police arrest a pro-Palestinian protester at USC campus in Los Angeles, California.
Pic: Reuters
Police arrest a pro-Palestinian protester at USC campus in Los Angeles, California.
Pic: Reuters
At Indiana University Bloomington, police with shields and batons shoved into a line of protesters, arresting 33 people.
At City College of New York, police officers retreated from protests, to cheers from the hundreds of students gathered on the lawn on the Harlem campus.
At California State Polytechnic University in Humboldt, students have been barricaded in a campus building since Monday, with staff trying to negotiate.
At University of Connecticut one protester was arrested and tents torn down, while protests continued at Stanford University and the New Jersey campus of Princeton University.
Read more:
UN human rights chief ‘horrified’ over Gaza mass graves report
Israel bulldozed mass graves at Gaza hospital, Sky News analysis shows
Israeli intelligence chief quits over 7 October attack
Harvard University is among those that have not taken action against protesters who have set up tents.
At New York’s Columbia University, where the protest movement began, university officials remain locked in a stalemate with students.
Police cleared tents and arrested more than 100 people last week but students put the tents up again in an area where graduation ceremonies will be held in a few weeks.
The administration has given protesters until Friday to leave.
There have been accusations that some pro-Palestinian protesters have harassed or abused Jewish students but protesters blame outsiders trying to infiltrate and malign their movement.
Protest leaders admit there has been abuse directed at Jewish students but insist the protests are not antisemitic.
Some of the universities have seen counter-protests from Israel supporters.
US
A race against time for Donald Trump as America seeks the whole truth – and nothing but the truth
Two courts aren’t enough – not for Donald Trump, not on a Thursday.
His hush money criminal trial and Supreme Court hearing, legal events one and two, were already under way when he scored the hat-trick.
A New York judge announced he was upholding the verdict and the $83m damages award against Trump for defaming writer E Jean Carroll.
There’s a lot going on, legally, and there’s a lot riding on all of it for Trump.
Catch up: how the day unfolded in court
The hearing at the Supreme Court concerned the 6 January riots, election subversion and Trump’s alleged involvement. It is a crime against democracy, at the serious end of the legal jeopardy he faces.
His lawyers argued he should be shielded by immunity from prosecution for what he did while acting as president.
The prosecution’s case is that he was acting as a private citizen, not in an official capacity.
Trump wasn’t present at the hearing in Washington DC, but he will have liked what he heard.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The prevailing legal assessment is that discussions with the nine-judge panel indicate that, while they didn’t necessarily agree with his argument for immunity, they have enough questions to delay the prosecution further.
A majority appear to think that presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions, even if the exact parameters are unclear.
Read more:
Porn stars, sex scandals and zzzs: A to Z of hush money trial
Newspaper chief was Trump’s ‘eyes and ears’
Adam Boulton: What Liz Truss and Donald Trump have in common
What is clear is that if the trial court is instructed to determine which of Trump’s allegedly illegal acts qualify for immunity as official acts, it will be an extended process that could easily push the trial beyond the November election.
Such a scenario would suit Trump. The less criminal exposure he has before America votes, the better for him.
If he can push the trial past November, and win back the White House, he can use the power of office to make the charges go away.
Pic: Reuters
The New York hush money trial is the only one of four criminal prosecutions to have begun.
The Supreme Court appears set to shorten the odds on it being the only one before America goes to the polls.
It is the pressing matter of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the man who would be president, and it’s a race against time.
This stress test of the fundamentals of American democracy and rule of law gets ever more stressful.
Donald Trump managed a partial victory in the Supreme Court today, as justices delayed any potential decision on his immunity case over election riots.
Trump argued on Thursday he has total immunity over the 2020 riots and while justices in the Supreme Court were not convinced by his arguments, some raised the point he may have some level of immunity – and delayed any potential decision on that until June.
If they then rule the former president does have a level of immunity, it could kick the issue back into lower courts to decide what that level is, and knock back any potential decision to beyond the November election.
On Thursday, Trump, who made history as his country’s first ex-leader to face a criminal trial, was also fighting on two other separate legal fronts. They include:
• His hush money trial in New York where he is accused of falsifying business records after allegedly paying money to porn actress Stormy Daniels to “cover up an affair”.
• His defamation case, brought by writer E Jean Carroll – a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to throw out the verdict against him, leaving him facing an $83.3m (£66.5m) payout.
And adding to Trump’s legal woes, his former lawyers and associates were indicted on Wednesday in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona.
Follow latest: Trump’s hush money and Supreme Court trials
Analysis: Trump has won qualified victory at Supreme Court
Trump at Manhattan Criminal Court with his lawyers. Pic: Reuters
Pic: Reuters
Supreme Court
During proceedings, justices appeared likely to reject Trump’s claims of total immunity, but delayed any ruling to make a decision over what specific immunity he may or may not have.
Trump, 77, had even asked to skip his New York criminal proceedings to sit in on the Supreme Court’s special sessions.
In Washington, the lawyer representing the special counsel told the court it had never been previously recognised what kind of immunity Trump was actually seeking.
Chief justice John Roberts said he was concerned if presidents were not immune, the country would rely on “good faith” to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents.
Read more from Sky News:
Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction overturned
Dolphin found shot dead on beach
US considers cutting funds to notorious Israeli army unit
He told the special counsel’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben: “Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment.
“And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases – I’m not suggesting here [Smith’s indictment of Trump].”
The Supreme Court is expected to release its opinions by the end of June over whether Trump has immunity or not.
With five justices appearing likely to reject Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, some suggested the former president may have some level of immunity.
If the eventual ruling reflects that, lower courts may be required to sort out the specifics of this – which could push any eventual decision past the November election.
Pic: AP
Hush money
Meanwhile, in New York, Trump was once again present in Manhattan’s criminal court, accused of falsifying business records.
Earlier this week, the court heard from AMI, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, about an alleged “catch and kill” scheme, which was said to have been used to get rid of negative stories about Trump.
David Pecker, boss of AMI who signed a no-prosecution deal to testify, described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories.
The National Enquirer, the court heard, bought up a sordid story from a New York City doorman as well as accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model to stop the claims getting out.
But Mr Pecker reached his breaking point with Stormy Daniels – a porn actress who was allegedly paid by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, to keep quiet over her claims of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. Something he denies.
Mr Pecker told jurors his publication had been contacted by Ms Daniels’s representatives who said they could buy her story for $120,000 (£96,000) if it decided right away.
However, the publishing boss refused to. He told Mr Cohen: “I am not paying for this story. I didn’t want to be involved in this from the beginning.”
After that, a cross-examination of Mr Pecker began, with one of Trump’s lawyers, Emil Bove, taking centre stage.
Pic Reuters
Gag order
Hanging over Thursday’s hush money proceedings were allegations that Trump, once again, violated a gag order.
The order restricted Trump’s public speech regarding jurors, potential witnesses and some other individuals involved in the case.
Judge Juan Merchan was already considering whether to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for what prosecutors alleged were 10 separate violations of the order.
But on Thursday the prosecution ticked off fresh instances of alleged breaches.
These were additional remarks made about Mr Cohen, and a comment Trump made about the jury being “95% Democrats”, among other things.
But Trump was previously dismissive about the threat of having to pay up when speaking outside court, saying he had “no idea” whether he would be fined.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
E Jean Carroll
While things may have went his way partly in the Supreme Court, a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to get a defamation verdict against him thrown out.
Writer E Jean Carroll said Trump defamed her after she accused him of raping her decades ago.
The court ordered Trump to pay $83.3m in damages, and on Thursday, US district judge Lewis Kaplan said Trump was not entitled to a new trial or judgement, so had to pay up.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment11 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports6 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Technology3 years ago
Game consoles were once banned in China. Now Chinese developers want a slice of the $49 billion pie
-
Politics2 years ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?