THAT GLAZER IS A W%NKER

To the generals - David Gill in his chief executive's office at Old Trafford - and the foot soldiers of Shareholders United and the staff of fanzines such as Red
Issue, this must feel like a phoney war. Malcolm Glazer's bid to take control of Manchester United is overdue, the question is when the blow will come.

The bid will come; the man who would rule Old Trafford has borrowed some
£200 million to finance his proposals and, every day that passes, the greater
the amount of interest he pays.

If he backs down, the Manchester United share price will begin to slide and
the value of his 28 per cent holding will start to shred. In the past, Glazer has worked himself into similar positions and won a tactical victory by persuading
someone else to buy him out at a hefty profit. There is no sign of anyone
riding to his rescue. The only way is to lunge hopefully forward.

There is nothing wrong with one man owning a football club. Manchester
United won their first European Cup under the charge of Louis Edwards, a
man whose business practices were more dubious than anything Glazer has
been accused of. With his shambling gait and baseball cap, Glazer resembles
a capitalist version of Michael Moore without the visceral loathing for George
Bush. If he gave interviews, he might sound quite likeable.

Yet it is what a Glazer-run Manchester United would resemble that turns so
many stomachs. The ticket price rises expected in response to United's
halved six-monthly profits may be only the beginning. Under the regimes of
Ken Bates and then Roman Abramovich, £45 got you some of the most
expensive away seating in the Premiership - and neither man planned to sell
the name of Stamford Bridge to make a few million quid.

What value the statue of Sir Matt Busby or the Munich Clock at the Nike
Stadium. The McDonald's Kop at Anfield was a cause for lasting regret at
Liverpool while the Arsenal chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, will give a silent
shudder every time he contemplates a trip to the Emirates Stadium. Then
there is the debt. If Glazer were buying your house he would offer a small
deposit, remortgage the property and use the loan to pay your bill. If you want to measure the success of Manchester United, check the worth of share
portfolios in Leeds United, Millwall and Sunderland. One of the great
achievements of the United board was to expand Old Trafford into a 67,000-
seat stadium without borrowing a penny.

If Abramovich were to disappear tomorrow, Chelsea would start careering
towards the biggest bankruptcy in football history. Arsenal will be hamstrung
for years by the vast sums borrowed to fund the move to their lousily-named
stadium; Liverpool have snuggled up to a Thai prime minister who respects
human rights every bit as much as Vinnie Jones respected the finer points of
football. In this company, Gill and his plc chairman, Sir Roy Gardner, are
angels.

What is so remarkable about Glazer is how little he can offer Manchester
United. His record in controlling the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is mediocre. In
10 years, they have won one Super Bowl; in the same decade Manchester
United have collected 10 trophies. He can give them nothing more in the
United States, where United already have tie-ups with the New York Yankees, Pepsi, Budweiser and Nike.

Glazer has tried to win over the supporters by offering to spend money on
players. Manchester United have spent £150 million on footballers in the past
four years and it is not because they are short of cash that they have failed to regain the Premiership or European Cup.

When the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands happened - an event far
less anticipated than Glazer's bid for Manchester United - Michael Foot
delivered one of the great parliamentary speeches. General Galtieri should be opposed, he said, not because he was a card-carrying Fascist but "for every
other reason" to do with this island's history.

Malcolm Glazer should be opposed not because he would turn Manchester
United into a debt-ridden mess but for every other reason to do with our
football culture.