Glazers Pass On Windfall For Tampa, Themselves
May 7th, 2010
Team Glazer must not be in the financial peril that some believe.
Manchester United, their beloved kickball team, will not play in Tampa during their summer tour of the United States in July. And considering Team Glazer would reap nearly every penny from what would surely be a near sell out of the C.I.T.S., Joe can only assume Team Glazer is not hurting for cash.
After Team Glazer bought Manchester United five years ago, it was speculated the kickball team wouldn’t play preseason summer games in Tampa because it’s so ungodly hot here that training and playing here would be a burden.
But that argument goes out the window now that the team will play exhibitions against Major League Soccer teams in Houston, Philadelphia and Kansas City in July. The K.C. game was a real kicker for Joe. It’s ridiculously hot and humid there, too, and the game is scheduled for 6 p.m., not even a night game.
There’s no doubt Manchester United playing in Tampa would have brought a windfall of tourists to the area and just gobs of cash to Team Glazer. The team’s following and allure is that large. … Don’t they realize how many $8 beers Euro soccer fans would drink?
Joe thinks it stinks that the Glazers didn’t make a game happen for the Tampa Bay area. But Joe also has to think it’s a good sign for the Bucs that Team Glazer doesn’t need the many millions in ticket revenue and concessions that a Manchester United would have generated here.
May 7th, 2010 at 11:11 am
I think the Glazers are mad at Tampa, because of all the negativity. Why else would they shut down the Bucs Message Boards, and deny us the priviledge of seeing Man U in the owners stadium?
May 7th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I think they considered it a conflict of interest. Mixing business with pleasure. I wouldn’t want some BS soccer team playing in my beloved Bucs stadium
May 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am
It isn’t like they aren’t going to get millions form the other coties for the teams travels. Here, I guess it would have been a little more with the fact that they own RayJay.
Jerrjenn2: The message boards are being re-done like the rest of the website. They will be online in August.
May 7th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Joe here,
Dave – There would have been much more money to be made here. The Glazers control all the concessions, would have been the hosts and scheduled a doubleheader to drive more revenue.
May 7th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Hey, the Glazers finally made a decision I agree with.
May 7th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Thanks Dave- But why close them at all?
May 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Another theory, they aren’t bringing them to Tampa because they know many Tampa Bay fans are angry at Man U and believe them to have soaked up all of our owners cash. Whether it’s true or not it is a popular belief in the area as I understand it.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Philly, KC and Houston all have MLS teams. Tampa does not. We had a team and no one went to see it. What would make the Glazers think that people in Tampa would go see two soccer teams from out of town if we wouldn’t go see the team that was based here. Even if one of those teams is the most popular sports franchise in the world.
Imagine if they had brought Manu in here and it didn’t sell out in their own stadium…that would be a huge embarrasment.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Joe, this comment is sure to get you strung up in the city square:
“Team Glazer must not be in the financial peril that some believe”
You could add to your story that the Glazers also recently let it be known that they would not sell ManU for 1.5 billion (They bought for 800M).
Oh well . . . bring on the barrage of crazy explanations for why the Glazers are actually broke, notwithstanding the facts.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
@d-money, good point. I don’t believe it would be a guaranteed sellout and there might be concerned with possible protests. The Man-U Glazer-haters would love to make them look bad in front of their “other team”.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
d-money: good point, but they probably sell out if ManU comes here. Tampa actually has a strong soccer community, as does Florida in general. The Mutiny failed for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with interest in the sport.
Nonetheless, you are right to point out the MLS connection. That is surely the driving factor. Joe is also correct that the Glazers would make a lot by bringing ManU here.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Joe here,
d-money – Actually, the Tampa MLS team, the Mutiny, had better attendance than the Kansas City franchise. And overall the team’s attendance here was not the problem, it was the lack of a local owner and the stadium lease (which had all non-ticket revenue going to the Glazers).
That said, Manchester United wouldn’t have had to play a MLS team. It could have played another foreign club here, or one of the younger US Teams (olympic squad or under-20s).
Manchester United came to the US in 2003 and 2004 and sold out all over teeh place and brought tons of tourists. And they didn’t play any MLS teams. They would have done just fine in Tampa this summer, especially on the heels of the World Cup.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Joe here,
JimBucs wrote: “You could add to your story that the Glazers also recently let it be known that they would not sell ManU for 1.5 billion (They bought for 800M).”
Well, there were no quotes in those stories from the Glazers or Man. U. management, and one coudl argue they’re just negotiating. Or, of course, it could mean Team Glazer is just fine and sipping Dom Perignon and gearing up to pay Bill Cowher.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Joe,
“They would have done just fine in Tampa this summer, especially on the heels of the World Cup.”
Good point. I hadn’t considered the World Cup boost.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
$8 for American beers? As a European, I don’t think you’d get a lot of Euro fans to pay that amount of money for beer that’s not close to the quality Europeans are used to. I’m not kidding here, even the Heineken (a brand I hate anyway) served in the US is vastly different from the Heineken served here.
Also something you’re missing here: while Manchester United is in the States, the World Cup is going on in South Africa – basically the only sporting event that eclipses the Super Bowl. Every futbol fan in the world will be following the World Cup, and they will care a lot less about a Manchester United team without its star players because of that World Cup too. The windfall would be a lot less than usual because of that.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Good point Joe. I guess I should have said that it has been reported that the Glazers let it be known that they would not accept $1.5 billion.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
JOe here,
Sander – The US games are weeks after the World Cup final, so there’s no conflict as you state.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Joe, not to stray into a Mutiny discussion, but you could add to the stadium lease and lack of local owner: hubris, rejection of the Rowdies and the Rowdies brand, over-reliance on Nike marketing (what does a “mutant” have to do with soccer?) and all the other issues that were associated with early MLS.
One poster commented on potential protests. The Glazers and ManU are used to protests. Besides, I have a feeling that the majority of Tampa Bay are not as dialed-in to the Bucs/ManU thing as people on this board.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@Joe:
The tour starts only 5 days after the World Cup final, not weeks, and it’s unlikely that the World Cup stars (who make up a very large part of Man U’s roster) will be there.
See: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2010/05/06/manchester-united-to-make-toronto-appearance-in-july/
May 7th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
JimBuc:
In short, most Bucs fans have as much interest in ManU as the price of black olives in Greece. The only reason the vast majority of Bucs fans even have ManU in their vocabulary is because some believe the kickball team is siphoning funds from the Bucs’ coffers.
Not sure what you are referencing with the Mutiny/Rowdies (this Joe is not a soccer guy, so pardon this Joe’s soccer ignorance. This Joe knows zilch about the aforementioned teams).
May 7th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Sander:
Even Americans have a hard time choking down American beer for $8 a pop. It’s one of, but not the main reason, Joe dropped his Bucs season tickets.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Hey, Clayton might be a good soccer player, you are not even allowed to touch the ball with your hands.
But, than again, no blocking.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Joe, how is this a good sign for the Bucs? It’s not like any of those millions are going to be spent here any time in the forseeable future.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
JimBuc,
“(what does a “mutant” have to do with soccer?) ”
Seriously?
May 7th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
JimBuc, The Rowdies didn’t even play in the MLS. It was the NASL, they played in from 1973 to 80 something and a couple of indoor leagues. MLS was founded in the early 90s.
But, I do agree about the overall Tampa Bay fan base.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Mutants are scary! Especially, Tampa Bay ones!
May 7th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Joe here,
Sander – Joe was referring to the US leg of the Manchester United tour, not up in Toronto. And that said, it’s perhaps wishful thinking for you to believe many of Manchester United’s stars would be tied up in the World cup final. …Of course, Joe is unaware of your soccer allegiances.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Slappy:
It just means that if Team Glazer truly was hurting for cash, they wouldn’t pass up such a slam-dunk to pocket an easy seven-figures.
And if Team Glazer isn’t hurting for cash, that’s good for the Bucs.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Joe here –
JimBuc – No reason to chat here about early MLS marketing. Maybe over a beer one day.
But forgetting about those other theories you gave, I think it was nothing more than inferior mid- and bottom-level talent on the rosters, largely crappy stadiums to play in, which seriously affects the game, and an underfunded pre-Internet paid marketing effort that didn’t really understand what would drive fan interest.
That said, they’ve succeeded in the big picture.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
@Joe: You’re right about when the team gets to the States. But from what I know, these tours tend to start and end with the same players and they don’t bring in new players halfway through. ‘Course, this may be different with this tour. But what I think doesn’t much matter, I did give you a news source that said the same thing.
I have no love for Manchester United or the English squad – I support the Dutch team (ManU’s only Dutchman, Van der Sar, retired from the national team so he isn’t influencing me either) and my local club PSV in soccer, and when it comes to the Premier League I’d take Arsenal and Chelsea over Man U by a wide margin. But it’s still unlikely that the English team isn’t in South Africa through at least the quarter finals – they’re a top 10 team.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Joe here,
Sander – PSV gave up on Beasley at the right time. Watched a share of their games when he was there.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Joe, Beasley was a decent force here, though I can’t say I mourned his moving on. He was as fast as anyone but he lacked technique and football intelligence and that’s stopped him from getting better.
He played on some great PSV teams, though. PSV hasn’t been the same since Hiddink left, sadly.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
d-money — yes, seriously.
Joe — look forward to the beer and the MLS discussion
Oar — I obviously know the Rowdies were not in the MLS and you obviosuly don’t understand the connection. No big deal.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Jimbuc,
They were called the Mutiny…not the mutants.
You know like a Mutiny on a pirate ship?
Playing off of the Pirate history of the Tampa Bay area…kind of like another local sports teams name.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
JimBuc, “hubris, rejection of the Rowdies and the Rowdies brand, over-reliance on Nike marketing (what does a “mutant” have to do with soccer?) and all the other issues that were associated with early MLS.”
I’m sorry, but that sounds like you rolled the Rowdies up with the early MLS.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Pirate mutants are even more scary!
May 7th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Joe,
I have a question for you. Which photo get more hits for your website when you post them? Hot Rachel Watson or the Glazer boys? I’m betting the latter. It is a cruel, sick world. LMAO.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Troxel8t8:
I think you know the answer to that question. 🙂 Hint: To Joe’s knowledge, there is not a Team Glazer Facebook fan page.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
d-money — Beg to differ. I was at the roll out press conference. We all assumed the pirate connection, but that was not it. The logo and branding and name were built around a “mutant.” Nike’s work. Lot of people share your confusion.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Oar — this was one of the reason I listed fro the failure of the Mutiny:
rejection of the Rowdies and the Rowdies brand
Not sure how that comes across as the Rowdies being part of the MLS?
May 7th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Jimbuc,
That may have been the idea behind the design of the Logo but the name “Mutiny” comes from the pirate theme.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Also Jimbuc,
The Rowdies were not rejected in Tampa Bay. They were pretty succesfull here and had a strong following for a soccer team. They were done in by the poor management of the league.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
JimBuc, Maybe separate them better? You had them all together like they were of one context.
BTW didnt know a black bat on a shield was a “mutant”?
May 7th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
d-money: no need to take up the space here talking about the Mutiny but I assure you the name was based on a character that was a “futuristic soccer mutant.” Trust me.
I never said the Rowdies were rejected by Tampa Bay, I said the MLS and the Mutiny rejected the Rowdies.
(I must need to work on my writing skills)
May 7th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
My bad Oar — it was a list.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Jimbuc,
Ok i get what you’re saying about the Rowdies…and I guess I’ll take your word on the Mutiny thing…which if thats true you are right that is about the dumbest thing ever.
May 7th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
d-money — for context, I was there for the intial press conference. One of my teammates modeled the uniform. I spoke with a league rep and a Nike person and a reporter from the Trib about the issue. Right before the press conference started, we drew the exact connection you did. Makes perfect sense. It was explained to us that the connection was not actually intended, although it worked. The concept was to have a character — in this instance a futuristic soccer mutant. Strange but true useless trivia!
May 7th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Joe here,
JimBuc – Who are you, man? Derek Backman.
May 7th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I would never be confused with Dickey
May 7th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
@jimbuc
Your everywhere man. On a plane with Brooks, modeling soccer uniforms.
Who are you?
This is like that Clint Eastwood movie where he rode into Lago.
May 7th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Eric — it was Southwest so no big deal, just talked to #55 while in the cattle call. Believe me, I never modeled anything in my life. Teammate, not me
May 7th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
One of the Joes knows his soccer! Don’t mean that as a shot at the other Joe, just as a compliment to Soccer Joe. Soccer Joe, if you ever have a JBF party we’ll have to compare notes over a Caybrew.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
@Jimbuc:
If you are a soccer player, great! But you have lost all credibility regarding football analysis. That explains a lot.
You sure sound like an expert on all things MLS.
I have yet to meet a high-level soccer guy who had an in-depth understanding of the nuances of football.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Thomas — I am flattered by the obsession, but you might want to give a break, lest people get the “wrong” idea about you.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Joe:
Just so I understand this analysis. Manu decides to play a US game somewhere other than Tampa and that proves that the Glazers dont have $ issues.
I am sorry – what a stretch. In addition to the lack of a MLS team here – Have you considered: 1) whether Houston guaranteed a gate return; 2) whether there was a scheduling conflict at RayJay; 3) whether there was a relationship between Manu and Houston; 4) about 100 other possibilities as to why Houston ended up being the location.
Also, did you consider the forum that this game may create for unhappy Buc and Manu fans to express there dissatisfaction with the state of our franchises. The Glazers may have been concerned about the combination of forces (mad Manu and Buc fans) creating a spectacle.
BTW – Is it just a coincidence that both many Buc and many Manu fans believe that our franchises are being mismanaged and at least the time starts w/ the Glazer acquisition of Manu?
May 7th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Arent many adoring fans obsessed about you the former MLS Mutiny superstar that you allow others to believe that you are.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Thomas = reading issues. Maybe Thomas is so angry he cannot see straight?
May 7th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
There is some communication problem – I think it is more likely you. In support of my argument, you understand the jibberish spewing from rahs mouth.
However, you said that a Mutiny player was a “teammate.” The fair inference was that he was your teammate on the team being discussed. That is why I said “allow others to believe.”
May 7th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
JimBuc:
Non-soccer Joe is not offended, no problem. 🙂
May 7th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Thomas — post the quote where I said a Mutiny player was a teammate.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Eric — it was Southwest so no big deal, just talked to #55 while in the cattle call. Believe me, I never modeled anything in my life. Teammate, not me
May 7th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
for context, I was there for the intial press conference. One of my teammates modeled the uniform. I spoke with a league rep and a Nike person and a reporter from the Trib about the issue. Right before the press conference started, we drew the exact connection you did. Makes perfect sense. It was explained to us that the connection was not actually intended, although it worked. The concept was to have a character — in this instance a futuristic soccer mutant. Strange but true useless trivia!
May 7th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
“One of my teammates modeled the (mutiny) uniform.”
Lets take a vote: What is the inference?
May 7th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Thomas, not sure how you take from that that I am suggesting that I was Mutiny player? If you read up further, you will see that I said a teammate of mine modeled the uniform AT THE FIRST PRESS CONFERENCE. Thomas, the first press conference was to announce the team. There was no Mutiny at the time. The model was my teammate from another team. Like I said, blinded by anger.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
also your question was so misleading it caused joe to ask – who are u?
u didnt clear it up.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
crickets…
May 7th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Joe asked, jokingly, whether I was Dickey Backman. You are one angry dude.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Joe here,
Thomas wrote: “I am sorry – what a stretch. In addition to the lack of a MLS team here – Have you considered: 1) whether Houston guaranteed a gate return; 2) whether there was a scheduling conflict at RayJay; 3) whether there was a relationship between Manu and Houston; 4) about 100 other possibilities as to why Houston ended up being the location.”
Thomas – There are three games in the U.S. and one in Toronto. This has nothing to do with Houston. …. As for a scheduling conflict at RayJay. Ha! It’s a dead venue because they can’t attract anything there because the Glazers keep all the concession revenue. …More specifically the first $2 million from any non-bucs event or a series of events.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Thomas — and that response was from non-soccer Joe (I think). 🙂
May 7th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Joe here,
Actually, that’s soccer Joe. … Joe sure can be a confusing two-headed manbeast sometimes. 😉
May 7th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
therein may lie your answer Joe.
why would mls wabt to do a deal where the Glazers double dip? Meaning get Manu take a stadium take. Remember there are 2 sides to these deals. If Mls would get a cut with a better stadium deal, why wouldnt they negotiate a non-rayjay venue
I agree I am not a soccer guy. just didnt follow joes logic re houston = glazers are financially fine
May 7th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Impossible to keep it straight. You’ll have to explain the onscure Dickey Backman reference some time.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Uh .. that’s “obscure.” Need an edit feature or I need to be banned on “Few Beers Friday”
May 7th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Thomas — the Glazers own ManU. You get that, right? Pretty sure they had a substantial say in the venues.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Joe here,
JimBuc – Not hard to explainthe Backman reference. I, with my reading comprehension problem (much like yours), assumed you stated you were a Mutiny player, and I couldn’t think of another off the top of my head from ’96 that could be a Bucs fan.
Went to one Cyclones game in ’95, but it only made me realize that I was better than a share of guys on that roster, so it wasn’t a lot of fun.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I am sure its my writing problem. A-League Cyclones?
May 7th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
So I wasnt the only one who thought you were saying that you were a mutiny player. Maybe it is your writing not our reading.
And you are a lawyer? You may want to switch careers. How about Glazer, Dom and Rah PR? You seem to spend substantial time doing that for free.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
My apologies Thomas. What makes you think I am a lawyer?
May 7th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
@jimbuc
For the record, I know what you meant, and did not think you were saying you were a mutiny player.
And i have had three jack and cokes!
But, Brooks had one more year in him and woulda helped Hayes!
May 7th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Lawyer, teammate of a mutiny model. Wow! Big Time, what is next? Valet Joel Glazers car? Share a hot tub with Dom? Sell marbles to Raheem Morris?
May 7th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Way to not let me down Thomas.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
BTW – why do you refer to someone at a Mutiny Press Conference modeling the uniform as “teammate” if you are not trying to suggest that you were on the team.
Shady at worst. negligent at best.
Yes Jimbuc – you have leveled some insults at me, so I find it necessary to expose you when you mislead.
But I will give you a pass tomorrow since it is Few Beers Friday. But nobody likes a name dropper.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Thomas — you are a dope, too dumb to get out of your own way, so don’t expect me to help you.
May 7th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
that was rhetorical brainiac. And I am the dope? LMAO
May 7th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Yes
May 8th, 2010 at 8:42 am
LOL and to think I missed the catfight!
Thomas give up – don’t hurt your brain cell trying to figure it out. It’s not worth it.
May 8th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Well, since every Friday is NO beers Friday for Smitty, let me just say I understood completely what JimBuc was saying.
The analysis for the reasons for the failure of the Mutiny is spot on.
The story of the uniforms and the ‘Mutant’ mascot, also spot on.
I did not think he was implying he was a Mutiny player…Because THERE WAS NO MUTINY TEAM YET, then.
Sheesh…Perhaps Thomas should try a few No Beer Fridays…The beer goggles seem to be clouding your vision.
Also, I am surprised that no one picked up on Joe’s sarcasm about the Glazer’s being fine for money. Maybe the Joe’s should type sarcastic comments in chartreuse, or Buccaneer orange for the slow of wit?
And, finally, I WAS a Mutiny staffer for a season, and if you are sharp, you’ll know which one by my handle.