Joel Glazer Is Filled With “True Love”

March 22nd, 2011

Man, Joel Glazer seems to be one super happy dude strolling around the NFL owners meetings in New Orleans.

And why shouldn’t he be strutting his stuff around his billionaire peers?

Glazer’s Bucs have a pile of young talent, won 10 games, spent peanuts to do it, and have one of the best stadium deals in all of sports.

Life is good for Team Glazer. Even Manchester United is cruising toward another title.

Disney NFC South blogger Pat Yasinskas had some warm and fuzzy time with Glazer on Monday and shared some of Glazer’s gushing love for his team.  

The Glazers get labeled as being detached owners because they’re not as visible as some others in the league. But I think that’s a huge misconception. While you don’t see the Glazers on the sidelines like some others, they’re far from absentee owners. It’s not unusual to run into them at One Buccaneer Place or see them roaming Raymond James Stadium. Back when Malcolm Glazer, the father of Joel, Bryan and Ed first bought the team, one of the reasons he cited for making the move was his sons’ love of the game.

“I love football,’’ Joel Glazer said. “I haven’t missed a Tampa Bay Buccaneers game since we’ve owned the team and gone all the way to Japan. I live for Sundays. I live for the wins and can’t stand the losses. Anybody who knows myself or knows my family knows this is a true love. To have a young team that you know is going to get better and to compete for the ultimate prize, that’s what you’re in this for and that’s why it’s so exciting.’’

In the full story linked above, Glazer made numerous references to the Bucs sticking to the “plan” they crafted that ushered in the Raheem Morris era. All the fuzzy history of the “plan” implementation aside, Joe wonders what’s honestly next.

When does Team Glazer plan to adopt a right-now mentality and go all-in for the Lombardi Trophy?

18 Responses to “Joel Glazer Is Filled With “True Love””

  1. Pete Dutcher Says:

    Back when Malcolm Glazer, the father of Joel, Bryan and Ed first bought the team, one of the reasons he cited for making the move was his sons’ love of the game.

    Hmmn. This would seem to fly into the faces of those who claim the sons have ruined this team. Could it be that daddy may have bought hte team, but Joel and his siblings were making the decisions all along?

    Afterall, Malcom may not have known football at all.

    Got my hands on some transcripts here…rich McKay opened things up I think. Here’s one of the things he said:

    The next thing is in Article 9 of that rule, the only change to defenseless player really is an expansion of the defenseless receiver, which is a specific category in the rule itself.

    Basically what we’re saying in this rule is that a defenseless receiver is one defined as ‘either attempting to catch a pass, or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, or who has not clearly become a runner.’ We’re just trying to expand that window.

    We’ve got a lot of players, too many players, that are catching the ball, landing with two feet on the ground [and] before they can do anything, they get hit and they get hit in the head. In our mind, that’s kind of defenseless. Defenseless should mean, in our mind, that you should be a runner or someone able to defend yourself before you’re subject to that type of hit.

    I’m sorry, but it looks like they are removing the secondary from the game almost entirely. CBs will be having a hard time if this goes through, which it likely will.

  2. Pete Dutcher Says:

    On the kickoff rule

    This proposal is not one that if you were asking the committee to vote on it from a tactical standpoint and for the betterment of the game. I believe the committee would be 0-7 against. From a safety issue, 7-0 in favor, because I think this gives us an opportunity to shorten the field and to lessen the impacts, if you will, that are happening on a play that is a popular play, historical play, been a part of our game forever and a play that we want to keep in the game.

    Next thing you know, they will shorten the field so that there are fewer injuries. Give me a break!

    change in the rule was moving the kickoff back to the 35. With that, we talked about moving the touchback to the 25. We definitely have an interest in moving the kicking team closer to the kickoff line, so we proposed a five-yard restraining line, if you would, from where the kickoff would be. Changed a couple of little things.

    Changed the kickoff out-of-bounds so people wouldn’t be incentivized to do that, and we have a lot of good feedback from the coaches and from the GMs in the meeting today. I don’t blame any of them for saying, ‘Wow, this is a big change.’ It is a proposed big change. I don’t blame anybody for pushing back.

    But our focus in this one was dealing with what we saw and felt with respect to the safety issues, and the need to propose some changes, these are the proposals we came up with.

    I understand the desire to protect investments, but this would ruin a key part of the game. Joe, how do you feel about this rule?

  3. Pete Dutcher Says:

    Wow, as I read this transcript, I am seeing big changes ahead. For example, each touchdown will now be reviewed upstairs (if it goes through vote-wise). The people upstairs will decide if there should be a replay review on the field (just like the last 2 minutes of each half).

    On the surface, this sounds good, but here’s the kicker…if the play is not called down to be reviewed, a coach cannot challenge a touchdown. They are removing the coaches ability to challenge touchdowns.

    Sweet Jesus.

  4. eric Says:

    Yea right Glazer boy, keep shoveling.

  5. BigMacAttack Says:

    Richie Rich McKay is a moron. I can’t stand him now, and couldn’t stand him then.

    I agree with Joe that now is the time to go on a limited shopping spree for a Few Good Men to help lead the charge. The Bucs are close enough to the top so as not to be patient another year. Open it up and time to rock and roll.

  6. eric the king Says:

    Joel, & his parasitic siblings are a drain on sport, & only out to fill their own pockets. The fact that Manchester united announced £110 million losses for the year, despite a net spend of next to nothing on players & having 1 of the biggest sponsor/merchandise/tv money incomes in the sporting world, & were debt free & making huge profits & buying top players before their arrival, to end up in the position they are, purely for the pleasure of being owned by the Glazer family should be illegal.

  7. Pete Dutcher Says:

    @eric the king
    Don’t you think if any of that were true, they would have taken the offer for just under $2 Billion a few months back?

    If Man U were actually a sinking ship, they would have sold in a heartbeat and made a huge profit (double their money almost). That’s almost a carper bagger (for you Wallstreet knowledgeable persons).

    Incidently, they could have used that money to pay off the debt for MU and still walked away with a $300 million profit.

  8. Thomas 2.2 Says:

    Im sure that you all saw the story that the MANU Holding Company lost 171 million dollars last year.

    I am sure that has no effect on buccaneer football operations!

    That is some more indicia that the go cheap/get rid of all high salaries including coach and gm plan, i.e. “the build through the draft plan” may have had a lot to do with finances.

    The article also mentions how Manu sold high-paid players in 2009 to avoid losses. Sound familiar?

  9. eric the king Says:

    @ Pete dutcher. There was, & do far has been, no offer for united. That is all media speculation, although 99% of all united hope it happens. One of the main reasons they are in no rush to sell is because as much money as the club now loses due to the interest repayments they have forced on the club, it is all secured against the club, not them personally, & they can take as much money out of the club as they want in ‘fees’ for their companies they set up such as red football holdings. They are the reason thousands of fans turned their back on the club, because they gave up what they loved, rather than pay money onto their pockets. As I say united were debtfree & making millions each year prior to may 2005. This is why mass anti Glazer protests took place inside the ground each game last year. We now per hundreds of millions just to be owned by them. All of this after our increased capacity, work which took place prior to their purchase, increased tv revenue, & also gate receipts bein raised by over 70% in the 6 years they have been there. Check their nett spend on players in that time.

  10. eric the king Says:

    Also, I did not put it that united were a sinking ship, but they are surviving in spite of the Glazers, not because of. We used to buy the top players in Europe from our self generated income & still produce profits of 30-40 mill each year. We have recorded profits once in their reign, as opposed to MASSIVE losses every other, despite buying bit part players, & that was because we sold Ronaldo, arguably the worlds best player, that year for 80m alone. Then replaced him with dross on much cheaper salaries.

  11. thomas 2.2 Says:

    Great points eric the king:

    also, the decline in player salaries for the bucs (2004-2005) perfectly coincides with the decline at Manu. Some refuse to believe that the Glazers cut players and salaries and sold players like Rinaldi to make the teams better.

    That is so ridiculously wrong it is sad. I understand the anti-Gru and anti-Dungy factions. These groups feel invested in Rah Rah and embrace him because they called for Gru and Dungy’s head. I get that, it happens frequently when a fan begs for a coaches head when things arent that bad, they get it, and they feel like they have ownership in the next guy.

    What I will never understand is the pro-Glazer factions. They acquired a sports franchise that they couldnt afford and it has killed the quality of both orgs.

  12. BigMacAttack Says:

    Sir Thomas 2.2,

    Losing money on paper and losing money in reality are two totally different things.

    The best part of having a successful business is “Losing” money every year and living like a king. The corporate tax rate in the US will bankrupt you. Why show a profit when the Govt takes such a huge chunk?

    The Glazers haven’t lost a dime. Don’t kid yourself, if Man U was a loser, they’d sell it. Man U is a cash cow, just like the Bucs. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Glazers actually hold the note that they borrowed to refinance the team. The money comes out of one pocket, with huge interest, and goes right back into the other pocket for a huge profit.

  13. thomas 2.2 Says:

    BigMacAttack: you clearly have no clue about finance and banking. You have to report if you are lending money with interest to a related entity. Not to do so can be seriously improper. Further, the british investigative journalists have torn this thing apart and concluded that the Glazers borrowed to the max to purchase Manu – put up some of the real estate holdings etc.

    Well the value of those holdings plummeted and they did not have the assets to sell to pay down what they borrowed to reduce the interest. The snowball is growing, growing and growing!

    Both franchises would be cash cows if they werent paying SO MUCH annually in interest. I don’t think that anyone has concluded that the interest payments ultimately owed on Manu, even after debt-restructuring which allowed for a cash payment to defer large payments coming due, were not going to eventually be crippling to ownership unless there is a sale or major increase in value of their assets (like real estate appreciation) which will give them the cash to pay off loans to carve into interest.

    THis is headed for trouble! So every dime they spend on overhead is buying time.

  14. m.wesley Says:

    You are so right Thomas,BigMac knows absolutly nothing ,just like me and you thats why we are all talking about the Glazers because if you were the owner we know what would be going on,Dan Snyder,Al Davis and Thomas2.2 spending all their money building a fantasy football team that doesnt win

  15. BigMacAttack Says:

    Thanks for clarifying that Sir T.
    Why don’t they sell the team if they are in so deep?
    They have had big offers or so it has been reported.
    Don’t believe everything you read and things aren’t always what the seem. When you know for a fact who holds the paper, then you might have something. No one really knows for sure, and people don’t become Billionaires by being stupid. These guys aren’t anywhere close to being in any kind of financial trouble.

    This isn’t about finance and banking. It is much bigger than that, professor.

  16. eric Says:

    Those Glazer boys are so lovable, like teddy bears IMO.

  17. Capt. Troll killer Tim Says:

    If the Erics keep pulling, thomas 2.2 inches might strech it to 2,3 inches!

  18. eric the king Says:

    I’m glad to c that Thomas doesn’t have his head such in the sand, if anybody thinks that having a club such as united turn from a massive profit making venture, into one decimated by debts & interest repayments a good thing, then I would question their sanity. What is good about losing your best players & replacing them with cheaper less effective options, whilst charging the fan, sorry, consumer, more & more each year to watch for what as in a business term, is a sub standard product. No Glazers meant top players coming in, fans charged a reasonable price, & a top standard of football. To go from that position to having to weaken your team just to enable them to be owners, with someone else’s money, whilst registering the debt against the club itself, and then taking out 50-60 mill a year as admin fees is just wrong. It’d no coincidence that the only year they posted a profit, a modest one at that, via the massive ronaldo fee, was months before they launched a new money raising bond scheme, which also ironically under scrutiny, turned out that they could then take as much money as they wish from the united coffers once the media attention had died down. As I started my posts with, these actions are those of parasites, living & leaching from others.