Fans who were against today's protests

Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,424
It’s not black or white. I’m all for protests and getting the Glazers out. When you break into Old Trafford that’s a shade of grey area, well technically it’s illegal, but morally it makes the point. However it starts to tip the balance in favour of encouraging violence and bad things... that I’m against.

a police officer getting his face slashed is not on. Fans protesting outside the hotel is not on, as it has nothing to do with the players.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
13,881
Calm down a bit, it was a tongue in cheek remark. If the Glazers have destroyed someone's passion for the club, I have sympathy, but I'd be somewhat surprise considering we got to three CL finals in four seasons, won a few doubles and won the PL three times in a row under their ownership. I don't recall a lack of passion from fans then.
Right. This is either some top Glazers propaganda on display or you're just playing dumb.

We did all you suggest immediately after they bought us with a squad assembled mostly before they bought us. The other buys were from shrewd, cheap scouting which we have incidentally not done since. Most importantly, it was all done to SAF who in 2012/13 won the league with a team that wouldn't even get 70 points under another manager.

Since SAF retired, we've done nothing. It's a bit like Game of Thrones. Once the clowns in charge run out of source material, their incompetence was revealed. Same for United. Once the genius that kept the club together left, their ineptitude became obvious.

So stop telling people to calm down and reflect on why there's so much genuine anger and frustration with these people who have sucked the excitement out of this football club.
 

ravi2

Full Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
9,043
Location
Canada
Right. This is either some top Glazers propaganda on display or you're just playing dumb.

We did all you suggest immediately after they bought us with a squad assembled mostly before they bought us. The other buys were from shrewd, cheap scouting which we have incidentally not done since. Most importantly, it was all done to SAF who in 2012/13 won the league with a team that wouldn't even get 70 points under another manager.

Since SAF retired, we've done nothing. It's a bit like Game of Thrones. Once the clowns in charge run out of source material, their incompetence was revealed. Same for United. Once the genius that kept the club together left, their ineptitude became obvious.

So stop telling people to calm down and reflect on why there's so much genuine anger and frustration with these people who have sucked the excitement out of this football club.
That guy defends the Glazers so much its like he is paid to do so.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
13,978
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
This protest has been coming for over a decade and it was mostly peaceful apart from a handful of incidents.
The fans have tried to make their voices heard for years with zero effect and this is the result.
I keep seeing this but what do the fans want? If Joel Glazer phoned you up tomorrow what are the demands other than sell us your 3bn asset for a fiver? Genuine question - not being facetious.
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
8,826
Yeah I started and then decided it wasn't a question that could be answered really. It's sort of irrelevant how much money they take out of the business they own but to humour you, probably the worst owner for that is Mike Ashley. The answer really depends on what you define as a "good owner", which is in itself subjective depending on your moral compass and personal beliefs. For example if United were to be owned by an Arab state, with significant human rights violations against it, I would never buy a club product until they were no longer owners. Obviously I'd prefer if a consortium of real fans bought the club but that seems unrealistic.
It's not irrelevant though is it because we aren't taking about money they have taken out themselves, this isn't about dividends etc. No owner in any clubs history has cost the club over £1bn just for the privilege of being owned by them - over £1bn in purely loan and interest payments. They took over a club that had been debt free for 60+ years, immediately inflicted £790m of debt onto the club and 16 years later that debt is still sat at £450m - despite that footnote of well over £1bn being paid of out the club in that timeframe.

This is without looking into the dividends they have paid themselves over the years and the %s of the club they have sold off purely to line their pockets further. Literally not one thing they have ever done is in the interests of the football club.

Mike Ashley isn't in these guys league.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,545
Right. This is either some top Glazers propaganda on display or you're just playing dumb.

We did all you suggest immediately after they bought us with a squad assembled mostly before they bought us. The other buys were from shrewd, cheap scouting which we have incidentally not done since. Most importantly, it was all done to SAF who in 2012/13 won the league with a team that wouldn't even get 70 points under another manager.

Since SAF retired, we've done nothing. It's a bit like Game of Thrones. Once the clowns in charge run out of source material, their incompetence was revealed. Same for United. Once the genius that kept the club together left, their ineptitude became obvious.

So stop telling people to calm down and reflect on why there's so much genuine anger and frustration with these people who have sucked the excitement out of this football club.
We paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for van Persie, £22m for Nani and about the same for Anderson in the same window, we were prepared to pay the £50m to buy out Tevez's loan. We have spent plenty under the Glazers. Some people just don't want to acknowledge it.
 

ravi2

Full Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
9,043
Location
Canada
I keep seeing this but what do the fans want? If Joel Glazer phoned you up tomorrow what are the demands other than sell us your 3bn asset for a fiver? Genuine question - not being facetious.
There are far more eloquent responses to your question all over this forum than I could provide.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
We all (or most of us) want the same thing

An all conquering, invincible team that’s great to watch; probably a bigger stadium is on most of our lists and throw in cheaper tickets and cheaper merchandise.

We won’t get any of that with the Glazers. So we want them out. Protesting in some form is probably all we can do.

I’d be happier if it could be done without criminal damage and assaulting coppers. A properly organised mass protest would be better. It’s been suggested before but (once crowds are back in stadiums) a mass walkout after five minutes would be much better and would make for spectacular media impact. Repeat this every home match for a few weeks and we could be onto something.

As long as we’re vandalising and putting coppers in hospital, we’ll get nowhere.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
13,881
We paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for van Persie, £22m for Nani and about the same for Anderson in the same window, we were prepared to pay the £50m to buy out Tevez's loan. We have spent plenty under the Glazers. Some people just don't want to acknowledge it.
No, it's you who fails to (and I'm starting to think purposefully) to understand and is trying to obfuscate and play games with the truth.

They've spent £1bn on transfers. They've taken between 1 and 2 billion of the club's OWN money, estimate is around 1.5bn. Now, one of these numbers is bigger and shows their intent.

We paid £30m for Ferdinand in 2001, way before the crazy inflation in football prises started. Why? Because we could afford to do it and WANTED to do it. Your logic doesn't work.
 

Nytram Shakes

cannot lust
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
5,266
Location
Auckland
The one altertive we are lacking is a Glazer altertive. Without a realistically interested party with the finances to buy the club. We are stuck with the Glazers.

without that alternative any and all portests can achieve absolutely nothing.
 

MTF

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,243
Location
New York City
No, it's you who fails to (and I'm starting to think purposefully) to understand and is trying to obfuscate and play games with the truth.

They've spent £1bn on transfers. They've taken between 1 and 2 billion of the club's OWN money, estimate is around 1.5bn. Now, one of these numbers is bigger and shows their intent.

We paid £30m for Ferdinand in 2001, way before the crazy inflation in football prises started. Why? Because we could afford to do it and WANTED to do it. Your logic doesn't work.
You don't make any sense.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
We paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for van Persie, £22m for Nani and about the same for Anderson in the same window, we were prepared to pay the £50m to buy out Tevez's loan. We have spent plenty under the Glazers. Some people just don't want to acknowledge it.
Nobody can deny it and why would they. Listing players we’ve bought and adding up the fees is daft. This club generates enough revenue to be able to massively outspend every club on the planet. But we don’t because too much of the revenue goes out of the club.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,545
It's not irrelevant though is it because we aren't taking about money they have taken out themselves, this isn't about dividends etc. No owner in any clubs history has cost the club over £1bn just for the privilege of being owned by them - over £1bn in purely loan and interest payments. They took over a club that had been debt free for 60+ years, immediately inflicted £790m of debt onto the club and 16 years later that debt is still sat at £450m - despite that footnote of well over £1bn being paid of out the club in that timeframe.

This is without looking into the dividends they have paid themselves over the years and the %s of the club they have sold off purely to line their pockets further. Literally not one thing they have ever done is in the interests of the football club.

Mike Ashley isn't in these guys league.
I don't think you understand how the debt works. It's not a negative thing.
Nobody can deny it and why would they. Listing players we’ve bought and adding up the fees is daft. This club generates enough revenue to be able to massively outspend every club on the planet. But we don’t because too much of the revenue goes out of the club.
All of those purchases were made at a time when the debt the club had against it actually was an issue, and they were still made.
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
8,826
I don't think you understand how the debt works. It's not a negative thing.
In what possible way is seeing over a billion pounds go out of the club to service interest and loans "not a negative thing"?

A billion pounds took City from losing 8-1 at Middlesbrough to where they are now.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
The one altertive we are lacking is a Glazer altertive. Without a realistically interested party with the finances to buy the club. We are stuck with the Glazers.

without that alternative any and all portests can achieve absolutely nothing.
this is what’s difficult. We don’t have a viable alternative.

You could have a regime like the Saudi’s which surely no one wants, a plaything like Chelsea or some other organisation who wants to use the club to make them money.

no one/ no entity steps in and spends £3bn without wanting a return on that money.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
13,978
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
There are far more eloquent responses to your question all over this forum than I could provide.
Go on then. I haven’t seen a single post explaining what the end goal is. I know why they’re parasitic cnuts - I’m asking what do we want other than “Glazers out” - and why is it so important that many are willing for the team to be burned down for it to be achieved.
 

Godfather

Full Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
29,803
Location
Austria
The one altertive we are lacking is a Glazer altertive. Without a realistically interested party with the finances to buy the club. We are stuck with the Glazers.

without that alternative any and all portests can achieve absolutely nothing.
Sadly this is the truth. Still good to see protests now
 

MTF

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,243
Location
New York City
In what possible way is seeing over a billion pounds go out of the club to service interest and loans "not a negative thing"?

A billion pounds took City from losing 8-1 at Middlesbrough to where they are now.
Who says that if it's not used for paying interest, it doesn't just pay taxes (which interest shields you from) and the rest goes out in dividends?
 

rimaldo

All about the essence
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
40,674
Supports
arsenal
We paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for van Persie, £22m for Nani and about the same for Anderson in the same window, we were prepared to pay the £50m to buy out Tevez's loan. We have spent plenty under the Glazers. Some people just don't want to acknowledge it.
i think it’s pretty clear they have always done the bare minimum to protect their investment. they are not here out of love or duty, it’s a business to them. most fans are passionate about their club, it’s the nature of the beast. try treating family members as a business or any relationship on a transactional basis and see how it goes.

i will agree they are not the worst owners in history, but they are clearly on the shittier side of the spectrum and have taken more out of the club than they have we’ve put in.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
I don't think you understand how the debt works. It's not a negative thing.


All of those purchases were made at a time when the debt the club had against it actually was an issue, and they were still made.
If less money was being taken out of the club, more money could be spent on transfers. That’s as simple as anyone can put it. If anyone wants to say that we’ve spent a lot, I won’t bother to argue (it depends what you call “a lot”), but under better ownership we could have spent double and no player would be too expensive. (The Manchester weather would be our only weakness.)
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,601
This thread clearly highlights the fact people who disagree with the protest have 0 clue what the alternative is. I've seen no genuine alternative that will impact the Glazers from anyone that disagrees with the protest.

Oh, and Old Trafford is the fans' stadium, so stop castigating them for 'tresspassing'.


If this is not wumming, I don't know what is. There's disagreeing with the general opinion and then there's being you.
When, and which fans bought Old Trafford? Must have missed that.
 

MTF

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,243
Location
New York City
i think it’s pretty clear they have always done the bare minimum to protect their investment. they are not here out of love or duty, it’s a business to them. most fans are passionate about their club, it’s the nature of the beast. try treating family members as a business or any relationship on a transactional basis and see how it goes.

i will agree they are not the worst owners in history, but they are clearly on the shittier side of the spectrum and have taken more out of the club than they have we’ve put in.
The club was a business before them though, that's why it was possible to but it in the first place.
 

Deanor44

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
35
I agree with the general sentiment on here that protest is good as long as nobody is hurt or injured. The protestors wanted to make a statement and that has been done with us news websites such as CNN and MSNBC covering the story, so mission accomplished! I also agree that this should only be the start. I would suggest that MUST bring out a supporters Jersey for next season and strongly advise fans who feel the same as I do to purchase this jersey and boycott all kits next season until we begin to see some serious degree of action from the "parasites" to recognise that the fans are the heart and soul of utd and should be consulted on all actions regarding OUR club. Being realistic I cannot see them selling the club as it the crown jewel of club football and a license to print money so people are naive if they think they will sell.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,010
Nobody can deny it and why would they. Listing players we’ve bought and adding up the fees is daft. This club generates enough revenue to be able to massively outspend every club on the planet. But we don’t because too much of the revenue goes out of the club.
It doesn't. Barcelona and Madrid generate more revenue than us for one and the oil club's obviously coming in from elsewhere.
 

rimaldo

All about the essence
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
40,674
Supports
arsenal
The club was a business before them though, that's why it was possible to but it in the first place.
aye, that was my feeling on the super league. you reap what you sow and the other football has taken has led us here. fairly similar for every day life outside of football too. doesn’t make it right though.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
In what possible way is seeing over a billion pounds go out of the club to service interest and loans "not a negative thing"?

A billion pounds took City from losing 8-1 at Middlesbrough to where they are now.
the challenge is that we as fans want to look at the owners as fans who are helping the club. But we have owners whose only purpose is to benefit the shareholders - as in any business. That’s what we are a business.

we sold our soul when we listed on the stock exchange in the first place.

if we therefore look at United as solely a business, a leveraged buyout, and the servicing of debt is perfectly normal. Debt in this case is not an issue. It’s the same as a BTL mortgage -you never pay off the debt, but you make profit, and inflation erodes the debt and the value of the property increases.

So it’s not negative - if you look at United as a business.

however, we aren’t a business, we are a football club. So looking at it that way, it’s clearly a negative. But any owners are going to want to make money out of the club. So we are stuck in a reality that we don’t like.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
It doesn't. Barcelona and Madrid generate more revenue than us for one and the oil club's obviously coming in from elsewhere.
You only need to add the amount being taken out of the club to the amount we are currently spending to see that we would comfortably outspend them at the moment.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,601
We all (or most of us) want the same thing

An all conquering, invincible team that’s great to watch; probably a bigger stadium is on most of our lists and throw in cheaper tickets and cheaper merchandise.

We won’t get any of that with the Glazers. So we want them out
. Protesting in some form is probably all we can do.

I’d be happier if it could be done without criminal damage and assaulting coppers. A properly organised mass protest would be better. It’s been suggested before but (once crowds are back in stadiums) a mass walkout after five minutes would be much better and would make for spectacular media impact. Repeat this every home match for a few weeks and we could be onto something.

As long as we’re vandalising and putting coppers in hospital, we’ll get nowhere.
Genuine question, but who will provide all those things you say we want?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,601
In what possible way is seeing over a billion pounds go out of the club to service interest and loans "not a negative thing"?

A billion pounds took City from losing 8-1 at Middlesbrough to where they are now.
And nearly that amount post-Fergie has got us to where we are.
 

MTF

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,243
Location
New York City
If less money was being taken out of the club, more money could be spent on transfers. That’s as simple as anyone can put it. If anyone wants to say that we’ve spent a lot, I won’t bother to argue (it depends what you call “a lot”), but under better ownership we could have spent double and no player would be too expensive. (The Manchester weather would be our only weakness.)
See, I don't get it... I don't really want "no player too expensive". In the past years players that we haven't got that I wish we had are basically Hazard, Kevin De Bruyne... maybe Cavani when he was leaving Napoli. I don't see it as a guarantee of being more competitive. We entered a downward spiral when we appointed a bad manager in Moyes, and then followed that with 2 others that wouldn't really build anything long-term regardless of the transfer budget they could work with.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,317
Go on then. I haven’t seen a single post explaining what the end goal is. I know why they’re parasitic cnuts - I’m asking what do we want other than “Glazers out” - and why is it so important that many are willing for the team to be burned down for it to be achieved.
I don’t think it’s just up to the people protesting to have solutions. It’s okay to want change without knowing exactly what that looks like. I attended BLM protests without being able to articulate the changes that needed to take place, just that what is happening currently isn’t right.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
We paid £30m for Berbatov, £24m for van Persie, £22m for Nani and about the same for Anderson in the same window, we were prepared to pay the £50m to buy out Tevez's loan. We have spent plenty under the Glazers. Some people just don't want to acknowledge it.
Do you agree that the Glazers suck money out of the club, whereas City's owners put money in?
Do you genuinely believe the Glazers "invest" any money, or just allow us to spend our own money?
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
8,826
Who says that if it's not used for paying interest, it doesn't just pay taxes (which interest shields you from) and the rest goes out in dividends?
In the 10 years between 2008 and 2018, the total tax paid by every Premier League club in that decade came to less than £100m. Uniteds portion of that was around £15m.

I don't deny that would be higher without a running debt but not that much as the club would spend it's money differently like every other club.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,010
You only need to add the amount being taken out of the club to the amount we are currently spending to see that we would comfortably outspend them at the moment.
So how much is that in the last year? Some numbers will be nice
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
Go on then. I haven’t seen a single post explaining what the end goal is. I know why they’re parasitic cnuts - I’m asking what do we want other than “Glazers out” - and why is it so important that many are willing for the team to be burned down for it to be achieved.
The way they carried this out in the same weekend as the social media blackout, suggests it wasn't as well planned as many would have us believe.
I wouldn't think there's more of a gameplan. I hope there isn't one, as today wasn't great.
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,536
Location
Birmingham
Not enter OT or prevent the team from leaving the hotel and ruin my afternoon
I don't know why but this comment made me really angry, it demonstrates all that is wrong with the fanbase, not willing to take short term pain for long-term improvement. I'm sorry if it ruined your afternoon. Some of us care about the clubs future.

As others have said, every other avenue of fans being heard has been tried over the years an yielded nothing.