I wish Glazer would go away!!!

[wpgred]

Who is Man U? Manchester University?

[juaninho]

quote:Originally posted by wpgred

Who is Man U? Manchester University?

You've got it all wrong wpgred, it's Manu and not Man U.

Manu is a younger cousin of Nigerian footballer N. Kanu. Below picture is of Kanu and not Manu. The resemblence between the two is eerily similar.

I hear Manu may have some promise......

[Mancunian]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

Hey, Mancunian. I am humbled. You've said in much clearer, stronger and better terms pretty much everything I was trying to get at.

Cheers.

No need to be humbled at all mate. Thanks for speaking out and doing you bit anyway, cheers to you!

My advantage over shaku_bert is not so much because my arguments are clearer, stronger, and better, but simply that they are based in fact.

They're based in fact because I'm based in Manchester, have been virtually all my life, was born here, and despite a few other stints here and there, 35 years later, am still here.

So I know that there are plenty of people from amongst Manchester's Jewish population who are Manchester United supporters, so this whole hypothesis of: 'it's ignorant, yobbish, racist, anti-semitic Manchester United supporters v. Glazer and Jewish people generally', well, I know it's absolutely preposterous.

This is absolutely not a Manchester-grown issue, there does seem to be something of a whispering campaign going on, trying to make it an anti-semitic thing, when it's categorically not. And I just needed to correct that.

And again, who was it who tried to broaden this issue out, make it not only a 'Glazer/anti-semitic' thing, but who also tried to broaden this issue out, to make it a pro- or anti-Israeli thing? How the hell did we get there? This is about Manchester United, the takeover of a football club, so how did that happen, how did we get so OT?

Again, that was not a Manchester-grown issue, that was raised by Shaku_bert. I wonder why?

And I also base my media arguments in fact, because being British, yes, I'm a consumer of British news media, but I'm also involved in the media, involved in journalism, so I'm aware of academic research on the issue, and I'm aware of behind the scenes lobbying by certain interest groups, who seek to influence news coverage.

And because of my interest and involvement in the media, it really annoys me when people spout utter cr@p and quote it as 'fact'.

And finally, my comments are based in fact, because I'm a life-long Manchester United fan, as is my daughter, as is my father, as was my grandfather.

Which reminds me, I have a footie match to go an watch.

Toodle-oo!

[Blades]

i h8 mancs

[Bangoutoforder]

quote:Originally posted by Desigol

I'm not Anti-Semitic, but that doesn't mean I have to kiss Sharon's Butt like Bush. The American Media has become Islamaphobic (e.g Fox News). Don't hear the same level of condemnation for that.

I saw in the news that United fans want to form an AFC Wimbledon style team called FC United.

Now that's what I call cogent commentary. You really should apply for a professorship at Tufts or Georgetown.

[Gordon]

Geezusss! Did you see how mucht he debt financing actually works out to?

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=334143&cc=5901

Yikes!

[shaku_bert]

ahhhhhhhh.time to bring this thread back screaming into your consiousness.

To begin, I haven't replied earlier because a) this is one of my busiest times of the year at work, and I had hoped to be able to exhibit the same level of deference as Beaver had by not responding to my last post. But I obviously read the site almost daily and our manc friend's post certainly rankled. Had it been Beaver who posted what the UK troll posted, I would have perhaps mailed Beav off-line or just let matters rest (I actually have a lot of respect for Beaver as a fellow Canadian soccer supporter and as a person who has strong and (I freely admit) well thought through opinions (albeit opinions that differ from my own in some cases). But the troll is an entirely different beast and it is driving me to distraction, thinking that anyone might believe I have been put in my place by this troll. I know I berated Beaver for slamming me online, but I feel that this guy is just what I said, a troll. Comeon, a lifelong resident of Manchester who has no connection to Canada suddenly jumps on board spouting what he did. The mark of a troll who desrves no respect.

Mancunian's main assertions are that 1)A study was prepared that irrefutably proves a pro-Israel slant in the UK media, 2)If any negative press is directed at Israel, Jews immediately scream "anti-semiticism" and a deluge of complaints hound the originator of the news, and 3)The derisory attitude of supporters towards the takeover has nothing to do with anti-American or anti-Jewish sentiments.

Mancunian's assertion that the study showing pro-Israel bias in the media that he dug up is "authentic and authoritative" nearly made me laugh out loud. First, it is one study. One. If I looked hard enough I could find a study that shows second hand smoke is not bad for you, despite mountains of other data that suggest otherwise. So despite the feelings expressed by a great many Jews and other people that an anti-Israel slant exists in European media, Mancunian's one study dispells all such notions. Here is a link to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=279067

The article describes how Le Monde, France's paramount newspaper, was found guilty in a court of law of racist defamation against Jews and Israel. It also describes some juicy items that occured in the British press. I provide the link to illustrate that there are people out there, and not just "honest-reporting" people, who have some issues with British and European press. Sadly, the article was written by a Jew and is also hosted on a Jewish website, and thus Mancunian shall nearly certainly discount the story as being just another example of Jews being unable to handle warranted and justified criticism.

Second, just how independent was this "authoritative" study. In no way am I suggesting the authors are anti-semites. But I read the study and the authors decry the fact people were happy to hear good things in the press about jews and Israel because they didn't know what happened in 1947/8. Huh? In 1947, the UN in General Assembly Resolution 181 decided to create Jewish and Palestinian states. Arabs initiated a war with the intention of "driving the Jews into the sea". They lost. The fact that the authors are not happy about the birth of the state of Israel makes one sort of wonder, no? And lets not forget that British academia, of which the authors are a part, generally have a pretty low view of Israel. It wasn't too long ago that the AUT (the association of English university lecturers) decided that a boycott of Israeli universities was in order because, well just because. Sorry, Manc, I don't put a lot of weight in the study.

As for Jews using the anti-semetic card and swaying the media, do you know what you sound like? Really? You raise specters of Zionist cabals, plotting to rule the world media and its financial institutions. You equate the Occupation with the Holocaust. Holy Hannah! I had planned on writing a bunch a paragraphs on what you posted, contrast it to what appeared in an article in the New Statesman authored by Dennis Sewell (You throw up the same arguments that Sewell and every other left wing nut job do) and bash them down. But I have to get back to work so I will insert a passage written by Robert Wistrich.

<snip>

Nevertheless, the delegitimation of Israel all too often slides into a more general defamation of Jews. The call for the demise of Israel expresses, at the very least, an active desire to punish Jews or severely weaken their position. The media debate over antisemitism and "criticism of Israel" that has raged in Europe for the past four years has been characterised by an extraordinary degree of hypocrisy, bad faith, and transparent political bias. In France, for example, a left-wing international relations expert, Pascal Boniface, cynically paraded himself as the victim and target of an organised campaign of [Jewish] intimidation and Zionist "intellectual terrorism" solely because he "criticised" the Sharon government. In Boniface’s Manichean worldview, antisemitism does not exist - neither on the left nor among the French Muslim community, let alone among the vast majority of French people. It is simply an invention of ultra-right Jews in Israel, America, and France to cover up for Sharon’s "sadistic" occupation policy. In Great Britain, the claim is made that, because of the Holocaust, Israel expects to be treated as "beyond reproach." Those who question this, so we are told, are branded "antisemites" in order to invalidate anything they may have to say. The diplomatic editor of the Observer, Peter Beaumont, mockingly observed in this regard: "Criticise Israel and you are an antisemite just as surely as if you were throwing a pot of paint at a synagogue in Paris." The vitriolic Israel-basher Robert Fisk of the Independent is another who regularly complains of the "vicious campaign of slander" (i.e., invoking antisemitism) waged against journalists like himself who merely "criticise" Israeli policy. The Guardian’s comments editor, Seamus Milne, also angrily denounced the "absurd slur" that leftist support for Palestinian rights was in any way connected to anti-Jewish racism. Like Peter Beaumont, he insisted that concern about the existence of a "new antisemitism" was merely a cynical ploy to deflect justified criticism of the Israeli government, "an apologia for Israel’s brutal war of subjugation."

Guardian correspondent Jonathan Freedland offers a telling example. In October 2002, Jewish peace activists marching in the streets of London against the war in Iraq found themselves surrounded by hate-filled chanting and placards on which anti-Israel and anti-Jewish imagery were completely blurred. The demonstration called by the Stop the War Coalition, together with the Muslim Association of Britain, included marchers replete with Hamas-style "martyrs’ headbands," children brandishing toy Kalashnikovs and suicide bomber belts, and blood-curdling slogans and banners twinning the Star of David and the swastika. Similar scenes-including cries of "Death to the Jews" - were enacted in the streets of Paris, Rome, Berlin, and other European capitals during the past three years. Were these demonstrators merely expressing political criticism of Ariel Sharon and opposition to the Likud or to the post-1967 unsought occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? The question answers itself. When the New Statesman in Britain ran a cover story on January 14, 2002, about the perceived might of the pro-Israel lobby, in which a brassy, gleaming gold Star of David (suggesting ostentatious wealth) impaled a supine Union Jack, was that mere criticism of the Israeli government? Evidently not. Such images are the offshoot of a well-established tradition of antisemitic iconography that sees the Jews in conspiratorial terms as overmighty and "piercing the heart of the nation." The New Statesman cover line, "A kosher conspiracy?", made the association even clearer, with echoes of the sinister allegation that Jews are engaged in a secret plot to take over the world. A useful checklist to diagnose today’s antisemitic wolf in anti-Israeli sheep’s clothing might note the following signs of the disease: the singling out by certain writers of the "Jewish lobby" or the "Jewish vote" for opprobrium, together with strident complaints about Jewish communal solidarity with Israel; the gratuitous emphasis on Jewish wealth or the alleged control by Jews of the media; the growing calls for economic boycotts and sanctions directed exclusively against Israeli products and Israeli academic institutions; or the grossly exaggerated assertion that Jews reject every criticism as "antisemitic."

<snip>

In terms of why people oppose Glazer, Mancunian, for someone who purports to be involved in journalism, you're not too adept at reading. In my first post, I took great pains to ensure that I stated that I did not believe that Man U fans were skin head Nazi whacko's. But do you sincerely believe that there isn't a portion of those opposed to the takeover who aren't inclined that way due to Anti-American or anti-jewish sentiments? How infantile is that? Think about it, some BNP lunkhead is also a Man U fan. First thing out of his mouth is, "I don't want some eff-ing J** running my club", not "hmm, i am concerned that the turn-over required to service the debt arising from the acquisition is significantly greater than what is currently being generated, and I worry that this, in turn, will restrict the club's ability to enter the transfer market and stay competitive".

Just some odds and sods now. Mancunian, one of your final comments is "My comments are based in fact". You arrogant moron. So were mine. You looked at the facts and formed your own opinions. The fact that your opinions mirror those of the chattering, left wing moonbat class are in contrast to mine shows how two people can interpret the same situation very differently. I never once declared my opinions as "fact". In fact, I commented several times that Beaver and I had very different opinions and respected his right to have his opinion. You on the other hand somehow think you have the correct view in all matters. How pathetic.

And cut the cutesy closing remarks like "toodles" or what ever you posted. I started that kitsch with my cooking show comments and believe that I hold copyright. []

[Daniel]

What the hell is that post about???

[RealGooner]

shaku bert, do you realise that its possible to disagree with a person who is Jewish without being anti-semetic? I disagree with the Glazer takeover, and you are not going to cow me or others by flinging the anti-semitism weapon at us. Now can we please get ack to discussing soccer and desist form these wordy discources on historic anti-semitism. Thanks.

[shaku_bert]

I admit defeat. [xx(] I am the worlds worst communicator. Ever. I actually think that one can direct pointed criticism towards Israel and Jews, when merited. Israel merits a lot of criticism. All those who criticize Israel are NOT anti-semites. But some are. The vast majority of anti-glazer types don't give a rats ass that he's a Jew or an elephant or a dalek. But some do.

I fully admit to being utterly incapable of getting my point across. I didn't really even mean to have a major point. [xx(]

Gooner, you are so right. Lets talk soccer.

[beachesl]

"How about me, do I look acceptable? I don't look like a leprauchaun, a child abuser, a pirate, an elephant, a dalek, a used=car salesman with tacky pants or even Jewish, do I guys?...and I like sokkor, really I do! C'mon guys, give me a chance, huh?"

[shaku_bert]

who dat?

[beachesl]

"Dat's my boy Joel!"

[beachesl]

Sound's like ManUre will be in great hands, like all of us with AllState!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glazer sons join Man Utd's board

Joel Glazer is expected to take on a high-profile role at the club

Manchester United has announced the appointment of Malcolm Glazer's sons Joel, Avram and Bryan as new non-executive directors of the club.

The announcement came as chairman Sir Roy Gardner said that he stood down from his post on 6 June.

Non-executive directors Ian Much and Jim O'Neill have also both resigned.

Mr Glazer has won almost complete control of the United shares as part of his controversial £790m takeover of the club, much to the anger of supporters.

At the end of the May, the board recommended that shareholders accept the £3 a share being offered by Malcolm Glazer for the remaining stakeholding he does not own.

Mr Glazer currently owns about 76.2% of Manchester United's shares.

Director re-appointed

It is thought that next week the Glazers will reveal their exact shareholding when all replies to their offer of £3 per share have been received.

On 16 May Mr Glazer said he had raised his stake in Manchester United to over 75%, finally gaining full control of the club.

The 76-year-old billionare is expected to delist the club's shares by 30 June, in a move that would end United's 14-year presense on the London Stock Exchange.

On Tuesday the club also said that Andy Anson had been re-appointed as club commercial director. He was one of the three directors that Mr Glazer voted off the board last November.

The appointment of some of his family representatives had been expected, with Joel expected to take on the most high-profile role.

Business backgrounds

Joel Glazer has worked as a vice president of First Allied Corporation, a US real estate investment company.

In 1995, he was appointed executive vice president of the NFL franchise Tampa Bay Buccaneers, owned by his father, and he still holds this position.

"He has extensive sports management experience," says a Manchester United statement to the London stock market.

Avram Glazer, aged 44, has also worked as a vice president of First Allied Corporation.

In 1995, he became president and chief executive officer of Zapata Corporation, a US public company trading on the New York stock exchange.

He is also chairman of the board of directors of Omega Protein Corporation, the Glazer family business which processes fish oils.

Bryan Glazer, aged 40, has also worked as a vice president of First Allied Corporation, and also serves on the board of directors of Zapata Corporation.

Like brother Joel, in 1995 he was made an executive vice president of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

[beachesl]

hey guess what "Ad on Demand by Key-Word" just appeared on top of the thread thanks to the winkin' discussion...

Send flowers Israel Send flowers Israel Send flowers Israel Send flowers Israel Send flowers Israel Send flowers Israel

...there, that should ensure the ad is around for a while (please, nobody type in v, i,a,g,r,a ).

[The Beaver]

Lovely Lesbians.

[Blades]

did manchester united realy make £50 million in profits glazer has got a bargin