Anyone who thinks that the ManU purchase in 2005 and the Bucs being at THE BOTTOM in overall spending 2005-2011 are not related....
...has brains made up of peanut butter.
The Glazers have billions from their real estate alone.....but they didn't spend in free agency because ManU made them sooo broke they couldn't afford an extra $20M? They couldn't afford to spend like .06% of their fortune? Sure. That makes perfect sense.
In all fairness the agrument you are quoting is perfectly reasonable. There is a huge difference between someone's worth and their liquidity. The Glazers have been leveraged up to their eyeballs inorder to acquire ManU. The Glazers are superb business men. They were correct in the acquisition of ManU and its appreciation in value. But like a couple buying a new home, it makes sense that they would cut back in other areas of spending. Especially considering the impact the recent recession and real estate crash had on their holdings. You can debate whether the Glazers stopped spending as a result of the ManU purchase, but you can't say that it is absurd to draw a connection to it. The fact remains that spending on the Buccaneers salary has been suppressed for some time. Bad drafts can be considered part of the that, but it is reasonable to feel the Glazers have not chased excellence with the same fervor they once did.
I ,for one, think they made a business decision to reduce spending on the Buccaneers and allow the profit juggernaut that is an NFL franchise to generate wealth on an auto pilot basis. They are now reinvesting n the franchise - again a business decision to maintain the fan base now that things have improved financially. That is their right as a business owner, bt it is also the right of the consumer to make a decision not to contnue one sided commercial relationship.
