Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is on the verge of Good Article status, if not Featured Article status. Because of this, I would like a few opinions about how it could be improved in order to push it over the edge towards achieving those goals. I'm mostly looking for people to point out places where the language isn't quite clear enough from a non-business and non-football perspective, and where the article isn't quite referenced well enough. I'm pretty confident that it meets all of the other requirements for GA or FA, but comments about any other areas would be equally welcome.

Thanks, – PeeJay 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your desire to improve this article for GA and/or FA consideration. It's a noble task. In my experience the gap between GA and FA is a wide one so don't get discouraged if you succeed at the first and fail at the second. Perseverance has its rewards. I'll review the article based the GA criteria, I recommend getting it passed through GA and then going to FAC.

Lead

• The lead should have a picture, this helps grab people's attention. Is there a picture of Glazer? He's the subject of the article and yet there is no picture of him. Seems odd to have a photo of someone (Murdoch) who did not bid on the team and not have a picture of the person who actually owns it. Perhaps there isn't a free use option and if not then so be it but it would be nice.
  • I have hunted high and low for a free use image of Malcolm Glazer or any of his children, but unfortunately I can't find a single one. I would add a non-free image, but I doubt its Fair Use rationale would be acceptable. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what is meant by the "Red football" vehicle. This is unclear though it may be spelled out in the article, which is fine.
  • I've replaced the word "vehicle" with "parent company", although "vehicle" is a term that is commonly used – at least in the British media – when referring to the Red Football organisation. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A word like "However" isn't a good way to start a paragraph. It isn't necessary given the context and should be removed.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend spelling out the first instance of PIK. Abbreviations should be spelled out first with the abbreviation in parentheses.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• Watch for unencyclopedic writing: "...the club was in debt to the tune of over £2,500..." "to the tune of" is an example of what I'm talking about.
  • Reworded to "...the club was in over £2,500 of debt..." – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What is a "winding up" order? I speak American English so perhaps I'm not familiar with the term. Does it have to do with bankruptcy, like an order to liquidate assets and close the doors?
  • Yes, "winding-up" is the same as liquidation, and I have added a link to that subject, piped to "winding-up". – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...but they were bailed out..." Another example of unencyclopedic writing.
  • Reworded. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The first two paragraphs in this section are unsourced and should have references.
  • Good point. I'll get started on those and get back to you. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intial acquisition

• The £ is linked in this section but not in its first appearance in the previous section. Per WP:LINK it should be linked in the Background section.
  • Already done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaining control

• Write out abbreviations the first time used, in this case PLC.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The valuation of the club at the time of Glazer's take over should be referenced. In fact the first paragraph in this section is not referenced and it should be.
  • Not sure why that one escaped my own review. I'll get that referenced when I get back on my other PC. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that the two small sections about Glazer's take over could be combined into one. I don't see a need for two sections when both of them are basically about his aqcuisition of stakes in the club.
  • I've merged the small sections. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

• What does the formation of another Manchester club have to do with Glazer ownership? Did it affect the team at all? I'm not seeing the connection other than that it was prompted by people upset with Glazer.
  • The formation of FC United was big news in the UK, and since it stemmed from the Glazer buyout, it seemed appropriate to mention it in this article. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "which, coincidentally, had a large stake in a hedge fund company that helped to fund Glazer's takeover of the club" I would remove the "coincidentally", because we all know it wasn't coincidence and the word makes the tone sound sarcastic, which verges on violating WP:NPOV.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The tense switches from past tense to present tense (the sentence about the TV deal and Nike sponsorship) then back to past tense. This should be corrected.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Consider combining or expanding.
  • Merged into the previous paragraph, although now I am concerned about the length of that paragraph. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refinancing

• This section isn't clear. The first paragraph should start with why the club needed to refinance at all. I'm sure this is complex issue that shouldn't be fully explained here but the readers should no at the beginning why the Glazers needed to refinance.
  • It is a complex issue, and I'm in the process of re-writing this section. I really need to re-examine the sources to properly understand the financing of the buyout and the refinancing. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there should be an explanation of Red Football. What is Red Football? Perhaps Manchester fans know this but I'm not familiar with this company. Does Red Football carry the debt? In the first paragraph its £660m, in the second it's up to £716.5. So ManU refinanced twice? Once in 2006 and again in 2010?
  • Red Football is the parent company formed by the Glazers to control the ownership of Manchester United. And yes, the debt was refinanced at least twice, first with the hedge funds and second with the bond issue. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The information in the third paragraph of the lead is about the financing and refinancing of the clubs debt. This doesn't mesh fully with what is in this section. Can you summarize where the debt currently stands at the end of this section? ManU owes roughly £500m in bonds and roughly £200 in PIK loans. Is that right? But it isn't all owed by ManU right part of it is owed by Glazer personally or is it Red Football? Do you see my confusion? Perhaps it's my lack of knowledge on this subject combined with the complexity of the financing but I'm not really following this completely.
  • Again, I'll need to review the references in order to sort this out. Sorry it wasn't clear to begin with. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• That and the information in the lead should be a summary of what's in the article and it appears as though there is information in the lead on this topic that does not appear in this section or anywhere else that I can tell. Specifically the status of the PIK loans and the fact that the Glazers didn't pay them down in the first 5 years.
  • See above. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red knights takeover

• "A non-violent protest was organised by the club's supporters groups, following up on the "Love United Hate Glazer" campaign that had existed since 2005, and encouraging match-going fans to wear green and gold, the colours of Manchester United's precursor club, Newton Heath." The writing in this sentence isn't very good. Start with the Love United Hate Glazer campaign since this had been going on since 2005, then discuss the protest and green and gold initiative. Perhaps two sentences rather than one.
  • I am in the process of re-writing this section, but it's hard to jump back to the start of the LUHG movement in 2005 and then return to the apex of the protests in 2010. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Does ref 32 cover all the information at the beginning of that paragraph? If it does not you may want to sprinkle in a few more refs.
  • I will re-do this when I go through the rest of the article and add more references. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "They also reported an increase in pre-tax profits of £9.6 million to £6.9 million..." Is this supposed to be a profit range? If so then the smaller number should be first.
  • I've reworded the section to make it more intelligible. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "...after making a loss of £2.7 million the previous year." Don't "make" a loss, "take" a loss would be a better word there.
  • I understand that "take a loss" is an example of American English, so I'm going to stick with "make a loss" in order to maintain the use of British English throughout the article. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The green and gold scarf campaign sentence is in present tense with the rest of the paragraph in past tense. Check tense agreement.
  • Done. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Refs look good, formatting is consistent, and sources are credible.
  • Thank you. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• You asked about the clarity of the writing and to me the refinancing section is not clear. I listed my concerns above. One missing part is the explanation of the role of "Red Football". This isn't clear to someone who has not followed this issue. Who holds the debt, how much is the debt worth, what are plans to repay the debt if any? I think these questions are answered but just not clearly. Try to focus on the here and now rather than five years ago. It's ok to say what the debt was back in 2006 but the real focus should be on how deeply in debt Glazer and the club is right now and perhaps how that is affecting their ability to compete (if it's affecting it at all).
  • I totally agree. I think I need to go over my sources again and re-examine the exact way in which the buyout was originally conducted and subsequently refinanced. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The referencing is ok, I suggested a few spots where refs are non-existent or the referencing is light.
  • Thank you. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The writing is good, watch small strays into non-neutral point of view.
  • Thank you. If you could point out any more areas where I've deviated from NPOV, that'd be helpful. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You have a ways to go to get to FAC but I think a little clean up would get it to GA quality. I'd recommend getting it through GAC and then bringing it back here for a nit picky review prior to a run at FAC. This concludes my review, best of luck to you. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. Please consider doing a review here or at GAC to help with the ever-present backlog. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks. I've responded as best I can. Hopefully you'll have a few more comments to make with a re-read. – PeeJay 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]