Talk:Malcolm Glazer/Archives/2021

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021
Right now, the Glazers are being hugely criticised for currently trying to enter Manchester United into unpopular Proposals for a European Super League in association football. The competition has been widely scrutinised for encouraging greediness among the richer, larger football clubs. Which undermines the significance of existing football competitions. 128.240.225.12 (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering Malcolm Glazer died several years ago, it would take a hell of a lot of evidence to convince anyone that content relating to this year's announcement of the European Super League should be added to this article. – PeeJay 12:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Assigning soccer titles
I don't see that the source provided supports the idea that soccer titles should be assigned to the owners. American sports are totally different to everywhere else in the world, where your trophies are lifted by the owners first rather than the players. By all means assign the Buccaneers' Super Bowl wins to the Glazers, but you can't do that with Manchester United's post-2005 titles. – PeeJay 20:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, why are we so focused on the team's Premier League titles when they've won the Champions League, Europa League, FA Cup and EFL Cup since the Glazers took over? – PeeJay 00:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to add them, add them. To the overall point at hand, Man U won 5 Premier League Titles under the Glazers' watch...that is a documented fact.  When you say "assign", it isn't to say the team won the titles solely due to the Glazers, or that they were the reason they won.  But the titles did occur under their ownership, thus it is a part of their record.  When you own something, you own all that comes with it - good, bad, indifferent, or sideways.  The more I do research, the more I see that Man U fans are not thrilled with the Glazers right now due to United's recent doldrums.  I'm a sports fan, I have teams I follow, and get upset when they continually lose and do dumb things...I get it.  But that doesn't mean I can "purge" their record of past accomplishments either.  All totaled, the Glazers oversaw 5 PL Titles (and all the other various Cups) with Man U and 2 Super Bowls with Tampa Bay...not opinion, not being a cheerleader, those are facts that are part of their record.  Malcom was there for all except the last Super Bowl.  The vibe I'm getting from all of this is that this is more of a rant against the Glazers and a U.S. vs UK thing than it has to do with any kind of Wiki policy.  Vjmlhds (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to add it, you should add all of the titles they won since 2005, but this isn't a rant against anything. As I said, American sports are quite different to everywhere else, but sources this side of the pond don't tend to credit the owners of any football club with the team's successes. I wouldn't dream of listing Chelsea's honours since 2003 in Roman Abramovich's article, but maybe it's just me. Either way, you need to list it all or nothing; the Premier League is not the be-all-and-end-all of football success. – PeeJay 07:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing something - when you say "credit" them, it's not saying, that they were the reason for the success, or it's only because of them. My whole point is that it did happen on their watch, so it is a part of their record.  As I said, when you own a sports team/business/TV network or whatever, anything that occurs within that entity - be it positive, negative, neutral, or upside down - falls in your lap.  Vjmlhds (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that's not the way things are generally viewed in Europe. – PeeJay 15:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of how things are viewed, it's strictly a matter of fact...The Glazer family oversaw 5 Premier League Championships (and numerous other Cups) with Manchester United, and 2 Super Bowl Championships with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Malcom Glazer was there for all but the last Super Bowl, which occurred after he died.  That isn't an opinion or a viewpoint, it is a documented fact with references to back it up.  Some people don't "view" Joe Biden as President of the United States, and didn't "view" Donald Trump as such when he was in office due to various allegations of election fraud (Biden), or collusion with Russia (Trump), but both men were indeed president with documentation to back it up.  Long story short, how something is "viewed" doesn't matter, all that matters (in Wikipedia) is if is something that can be backed up with references. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're getting this. In Europe, the owner of a football team is not considered to have won a title. Their contribution is not considered to be significant enough to deem them winners of those titles. They don't get a medal, they don't lift the trophy. Look at Roman Abramovich's article; the titles Chelsea have won since he took ownership are not listed in the manner you want to do for Glazer and Manchester United. They are mentioned in prose, which is the appropriate way to do it, but not in lists or in the infobox. – PeeJay 13:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is more of a "custom" thing than it is whether a championship happened under their watch. If you own a team and it wins a title, it goes on your resume,  That is not disputed.  Whether the owner comes on the field and lifts the physical trophy with "the boys" is irrelevant, because that is just ceremonial fluff when you get right down to it.  It's like when the president takes office - his term begins on January 20 at 12 noon. All the "swearing in" and "taking the oath" ceremonies are basically just for show to be frank about it. So just because the owner didn't run onto the field and "hoot and holler" with the players, that doesn't meant that the title isn't part of his record.  Did Man U win 5 PL titles and various other Cups and did Tampa Bay win 2 Super Bowls under the Glazers' watch - yes - thus it is part of their record, period, full stop.  Anything else is just window dressing. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just say "that is not disputed" when I'm literally disputing it right now. – PeeJay 19:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How can you dispute that all those things happened under their watch? Was someone else owning the team and we just didn't know it? Vjmlhds (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm disputing. You said, "If you own a team and it wins a title, it goes on your resume, That is not disputed." Well, it is disputed because I say it doesn't necessarily go on your CV if the plaything you own does something good. – PeeJay 20:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

First what is a "CV"? (forgive me for not knowing what I assume is British terminology). Second, if the "plaything" does something bad, does that go on his record in your way of thinking? Like I keep saying, anything that happens regarding the team - good, bad, indifferent, or sideways - falls at the owner's feet, because it his property. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to mention all of that stuff in the article prose, but to put it in a list of honours is ridiculous because the owner does nothing. And no, bad things wouldn't go in a list either. Obviously the team's accomplishments should go in the biography in some form, but not in the manner you've been adding things. – PeeJay 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't say the owner does nothing. He hires the people that make the day-to-day decisions, he pays all the bills so players and coaches/managers can be signed, plus he gets the final sign-off on all the major decisions.  Where to place a trash can in the locker room...not really something an owner does or cares about.  Being willing to pay for a stud player or hire a top line coach in hopes of getting the team over the hump to bring home a ring, and thus approving or disapproving signings...that is the first and foremost thing an owner does.  Everything starts at the top - the owner hires the front office (team presidents, general managers, etc), the front office then hires the coach/manager and recruits and signs the players (with the owner's approval since he has to pay all of them), the coaches design game plans to put the players in the best position to win, and the players use their athletic talents to execute the game plan.  Owners don't score touchdowns or score goals, but they put all the pieces into place and pay all the salaries so said pieces will come and work for him.  So to say an owner does nothing is very erroneous. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I take it you're not a follower of Manchester United then? Then again, I could have guessed that from the way you think the Premier League is the pinnacle of achievement in football. The Glazers literally do nothing. They hired Ed Woodward for that reason. I was being hyperbolic to an extent by saying "nothing", since the metaphorical "nothing" and literal "nothing" are often quite different, but in the Glazers' case when it comes to Manchester United, it's not far off being the truth. – PeeJay 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just went through all of that...didn't you see above where I said owners hire front office people. Mr. Woodward sounds like exactly that...a CEO who oversees the day to day operations.   Who by the way are accountable to the owner.  By admitting that you went off into hyperbole, it IS starting to sound like you have an issue with the Glazers being a Man U fan (which you clearly acknowledge yourself as on your user page). Vjmlhds (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You obviously don't understand the situation over here. Please remove the content. – PeeJay 07:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Explain the "situation" to me, then, because there is no logic in your argument at all. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained it several times, it's not my problem if you don't understand how things are viewed differently over here. – PeeJay 13:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And again, how one "views" something is irrelevant, as Wiki deals with straight objective facts backed up by references. Man U won 5 PL titles and a bunch of other Cups during the Glazers' watch - that is in the record books and can be backed up by references.  Anything else is all about subjective feelings, which doesn't fly around here. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation of it, but one that is not shared Wiki-wide. You might want to ask about this at WT:FOOTY because we're clearly getting nowhere. – PeeJay 15:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to ignore a discussion just because it isn't going your way. Raise this at WT:FOOTY like I told you or you'll be facing a report at WP:AIV. – PeeJay 16:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * First, how can you say the discussion isn't going "my way"? It's just you and me...not like there's 5 or 6 people going one way, and I'm by myself...it's just the two of us tied 1-1.  Second, how can you accuse me of vandalism when I have a legitimate source verifying the claim?  It really does look to me that you are being a bitter Man U fan who doesn't like the Glazers and doesn't want to associate anything good that happened on their watch in any of their articles.  Your argument that "Things are viewed differently here" really doesn't hold water when I have verifiable proof backing me up. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. – PeeJay 16:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Then please enlighten me, and spare me the "That's not how we do it over here" stuff...no one died and made you the spokesman for all of Europe. Can't just tell someone they "have no clue" and then walk away - explain why my assertions are flawed, or else I'm just going to assume you have WP:OWN issues, and I'll have to report you. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I already told you to ask the guys at WT:FOOTY. If you're not going to do that, it's clear you're not here to actually collaborate. – PeeJay 17:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're projecting...it's clear you don't want to answer my questions or engage in a discussion. You essentially are saying "leave the article my way, because I said so".  You are the one who doesn't want to collaborate - you just want to inflict your will on everybody and leave it at that.  That doesn't wash.  There is no reason to removed reliably sourced material from an article other than personal feelings, which is basically you just engaging in an edit war, which is a no-no, as is acting like you're the gatekeeper of any article - also frowned upon in this establishment.  Please get off the road you are traveling on with this behavior...it will not lead you to a good place around these parts. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In actual fact, I'm following the rules of Wikipedia. You were bold in trying to (incorrectly) add this content, I objected, and now it is your responsibility to gather a consensus for the change, which you have so far woefully failed to do. – PeeJay 19:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will also note that your constant reversions are clearly indiscriminate as you keep making changes that are unrelated to this discussion. It's clear you don't care about the discussion, you just want to have your way. – PeeJay 19:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)