Guardian: Manchester United lose £200m training kit deal over fans’ anti-Glazers campaign

Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
for me the perfect owner would be a football and united fan that trusts competent people to manage the club the right way without interfering too much. and he/she shouldnt take money out of the club
You know that’s cloud cuckoo land though?

So basically a fan that stumps up £3bn, has no say over how the club he’s spent £3bn on is run, and who makes zero return on that investment.

I agree with you - but it’s never going to happen.
 

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
Adidas etc have already handed over the money, you assume those brands cant just demand to cancel contracts. If this is true they are being denied actual future income
No but not all sponsors hand over money in one lump sum. If there were concerns from existing commercial partners we have a sackful of them so you’d expect something to come out of there if anyone were concerned . It’s only come from a rumoured potential sponsor.

Deals take a long time to put together. Would something that really hasn’t got much further than a hashtag that’s not really trended much or set the world on fire really be enough for multinational corporations to withdraw to request terminal of major sponsorship deals?

I get the ‘based in a Manchester’ thing but this campaign really hasn’t been that big or notable. I have a hard time believing that company not even targeted would on the basis of it trending number 29th in the world for ten minutes last Tuesday, would on that basis pull the plug on an alleged £200m deal

There’s something about this that doesn’t ring true. Especially when we are in partnership with dozens of companies from whom there hasn’t been the slightest peep of concern
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
2,626
You know that’s cloud cuckoo land though?

So basically a fan that stumps up £3bn, has no say over how the club he’s spent £3bn on is run, and who makes zero return on that investment.

I agree with you - but it’s never going to happen.
Fans want the Abu Dhabi and Qatari Sheikhs essentially.

I would likely stop supporting United if that happened with the club used as a way to whitewash human rights violations.
 

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
Or more likely it’s going to be used to make a lack of signings as being the fans faults.
It’s £20m a season from deal that’s going to be filled with a higher amount once the deal is actually concluded, that’s if the negotiations were even real to begin with.

Wouldn’t worry about how it’ll impact our transfer budget but MUST needed more than ‘look at TeamViewers Yelp rating’ to evidence the worthwhileness of the campaign as that had worn thin after a week
 

vanrooney

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
2,162
Location
Austria
You know that’s cloud cuckoo land though?

So basically a fan that stumps up £3bn, has no say over how the club he’s spent £3bn on is run, and who makes zero return on that investment.

I agree with you - but it’s never going to happen.
therefor i am a bit sceptical that the protests will lead to a positive change. there are not many good owners out there.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
therefor i am a bit sceptical that the protests will lead to a positive change. there are not many good owners out there.
i agree. The alternative could be worse. Realistically, the best case scenario may be the Glazers becoming more involved and invested, especially in terms of the stadium. Whether that’s likely (they say it is), and whether that’s ever going to be acceptable I just don’t know.

Fans want the Abu Dhabi and Qatari Sheikhs essentially.

I would likely stop supporting United if that happened with the club used as a way to whitewash human rights violations.
i think it’s absurd that anyone would want one of those regimes involved. Yes the Glazers are a better alternative to that.
 

RedPhil1957

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,609
Location
lincs.
Ed.
Glazers gave about 10 times more to Trump then Hillary. Biden i dont know. But what I read is that Joel G is considerned the black cheep for suporting Hillery. The rest of the famely voted for Trump.

Not true ---- only Edward supported trump while Avram and his wife have donated more than $2.5 million to Democratic causes and candidates since 2016, with a majority going to committees tied to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Avram also donated $25,000 to the Florida Democratic Party in 2020, according to state records.
Joel has financially supported Hillary Clinton and three of them have given local democratic congressman, charlie crisp donations,
None but Edward have any record of republican support
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
You keep saying this but it just sounds like whataboutery. Sure, other owners will try to extract money, but if the Glazers have been driven out because the fans have driven down the price of the club because they didn't like the previous owners, any new owner is gonna think twice before exploiting the club to the extent that the Glazers have done.

Manchester United has the potential to be eye-wateringly profitable - that's why the Glazers have done what they did. What the fans are trying to do is create an environment where the club can still be profitable, but where, if you want it to be profitable, it is necessary to maintain fan involvement in the decision-making process. If you go against the fans you make the business unprofitable by provoking fan unrest, if you work with the fans then there is harmony and profits increase.

I don't want sportswashers or oil barons in charge of Manchester United, but we can still find better owners than the Glazers if we push them out.
We could find better, but the likelihood is new owners will take out more than the Glazers, it's almost guaranteed because of the cost of buying us. That's assuming it's businessmen and not some m urderous middle eastern regime.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
Every one keeps says it's 'our' club and yet they think it will work by hurting 'our' club?

The only way this will work is by targeting the Glazers directly themselves. Not the club. They have and always will be comfortable with the situation simply because they live an ocean apart.

Why do you think the Glazers have the 'business people' managing the club? They pay them the big bucks to deal with these problems -- whilst they are thousands of miles away.

You want to make them feel uncomfortable -- target them in their personal space in the States. Not self-hurting 'our' club. The constant bombardment of protests in the States, badgering or hounding of the press there etc will have a direct impact on them.

Actions like this will only affect the club; our ability to compete and ultimately it's the problem of the likes of Woodward. Not the Glazers.
Well said.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
Well at worst we will have zero transfer budget in next few years, but who cares, we already have a decent squad and should be fine for a while! At this very moment we must united together to kick Glazer out of Old trafford!
Just as we're getting back to near the top, you want to throw all that away.

Unbelievable!
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
What makes me laugh is all these fans are basically saying is, we don't want capitalism.

The catalyst for many owners of clubs is generating money, the glazers saw an opportunity and grabbed it, it's what capitalism is all about.

Yes, we'd probably prefer dirty russian or Arab money, but ultimately that's another can of worms that you could go into about the unsuitability of other owners too. However we've got the glazer family and realistically, they've been decent owners all things considered.

The fans want success but that costs money, lots of it. Players/agents are the biggest leaches in football, their demands increase the debt on all clubs which is unsustainable. The glazer family are only leveraging debt onto the club to keep it competitive. Eventually all clubs will run out of money on the current model, unless their is a wage/transfer cap.

Sadly most fans are thick and don't really get business. They are living in a romantic football world of football from 30 years ago. The game hasn't been for the normal working man since sky injected billions into the game. This is just part of the evolution of football and sport in general. Football is no different to any business or sport really. The truth is, the club will die if the fans want to bleed the club of sponsorship and revenue. The choice is simple, glazers = having a competitive club. No glazers + no sponsors = club in freefall.
Good luck getting them to understand this.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
If the Glazers are forced out for loading the club with debt why would someone else buy the club and load it with even more debt. Makes zero sense.

I understand people’s concern but there’s too much scaremongering like next owners will have even more debt or a lost sponsorship deal will set us back years. How many years have these incompetent, greedy owners set us back?.
How else are they going to be able to buy United? Just how many people do you think have £3 or £4bn just lying around to buy us?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
Nobody is assuming that.

"Better the devil you know" becomes a little bit meaningless when your owners conspired to setup a super league which could well have decimated the English football pyramid, though.

We're already on course for everything the club stands for being obliterated.
Is that just passing you by or what?
Just hyperbole, not true.
 

talking robot

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
2,134
Location
nantes
In the best case this will create pressure on the Glazers to reform some key aspects of how they run the club and include the core fanbase, perhaps name a Van der Sar type as opposed to Arnold, and fork out on players + stadium repairs. If the sponsor pullout due to fan response did help create a scenario like this, it will have been worth it. And in a scenario like this, they will find a new training kit sponsor soon enough in any event. Not saying this all will happen of course, but it doesn't seem totally out of the realm of possibility either.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
We have no control over who our next owners are. Trying to hold supporters accountable for that is fecking moronic.

What we can do, is make it abundantly clear what is not acceptable to us. The last 16 years of neglect, mismanagement and failure to engage with, or even consider the supporters is not acceptable. Attempting to breakaway and destroy 130 years of English football is not acceptable.

By the time this is done, any potential buyer coming in, will know with crystal clarity that they need to be better than the Glazers or they will get the same treatment.

If it takes a few financial hits, a few barren transfer windows and a hit to our image as one of the worlds most valuable clubs to get us back to being a football club first and an attractive investment opportunity second, I can live with that.


To many of you, having a bigger transfer budget and being top of the Forbes list is more important. I get that - I just don't respect you for it.
Very few are likely to want to buy us if that's the case. Who decides what is better or worse than the Glazers?

You may be able to live with it, I'm not prepared to see this club I've supported for over 50 years brought down by a bunch of loonies.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,674
How else are they going to be able to buy United? Just how many people do you think have £3 or £4bn just lying around to buy us?
So in a scenario where Glazers are forced to sell they not only secure a price far in excess of clubs value but someone thinks it’s a good idea to buy club and dump loads of debt on it, seems plausible. Sure fans won’t have anything to say about that.

Not to mention the extortionate interest payments and fact banks probably might think before lending billions they can’t ever reclaim.

The most likely scenario is the club gets relisted, eventually Glazers will want to sell and viable buyers are almost non existent.
 
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
439
Location
Tangier
We could find better, but the likelihood is new owners will take out more than the Glazers, it's almost guaranteed because of the cost of buying us. That's assuming it's businessmen and not some m urderous middle eastern regime.
I disagree. If we manage to get rid of the Glazers then we will have had a really successful protest movement, and any new owner will only buy the club if they have a plan for negotiating with the fans.

Manchester United makes so much money every year that what we are asking for is not that owners don't make a substantial profit. Any buyer to come in after the Glazers have been ousted will have to deal with the reality that treating the club like the Glazers have done will lead to a fan reaction and revenues falling.

Clearly this is ambitious but it's not impossible - so it's worth aiming for that, rather than sitting on our hands and saying 'well, it's very unlikely'
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
The next owners whoever they end up being will have taken note of the fan expectations. The noise being made by the fans now will help the club in the future.
How? Anyone in their right mind would be well advised to stay well clear unless they upset supporters and who's to say what will set them off in the future? Especially if they've got the taste for protesting.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
You're ignoring the fact that sports club ownership is more appealing as a lifestyle purchase. A status symbol, if you will. And yes please, to the list.
Only to a very small set of people.

As was stated, what hapens if we don't find a new buyer, what then? Plenty of far more desirable investments have gone bust in just this situation.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
At which point, there will be a queue of people lining up to buy the club.

Or the club would go into administration and that would be the quickest route to 50+1.


I don’t think you realise how willing people are for the Glazer owned club to burn to the ground so something great can rise in its ashes. It’s an abusive relationship right now, with the Glazer’s exploiting over a century of blood sweat and tears that went before them.
They are pathetic and don't deserve to be called a fan. No one who wishes that does.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
I'm sure a football league club will have has its stadium sold off for land development somewhere

its a moot point though, United is one of the biggest clubs in the world - the value is in the brand and nobody would be daft enough to devalue that through asset stripping
But "fans" are prepared to do so :lol:
 

Lappen

Full Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Messages
332
Location
Sweden
Not true ---- only Edward supported trump while Avram and his wife have donated more than $2.5 million to Democratic causes and candidates since 2016, with a majority going to committees tied to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Avram also donated $25,000 to the Florida Democratic Party in 2020, according to state records.
Joel has financially supported Hillary Clinton and three of them have given local democratic congressman, charlie crisp donations,
None but Edward have any record of republican support
The Independent dont agree with Goal on this matter...
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
Finally, someone that understands how big business works.

There's not a billionaire in the world that made a billion dollars by giving it away to a football club and expecting absolutely nothing back in return. People need to wake the feck up.
Good luck getting the extremists to even read, let alone un derstand.
 

Cast5

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
634
Location
Warrington
They, apparently, are true supporters according to a lot on here.

Personally, anyone prepared to damage United loses the right to call themselves a fan, imo.
What about wanting United fans to be beat up? Can you call yourself a fan then?
 

OleGunnar20

Full Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
2,194
Fantastic news. Keep up the momentum - This could begin to spiral and the Glazers will know it.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
They have costs us fans 1,6 billion £ so far and the depth haven't been reduced more than 250 mil. We are the only PL club that pay revenue to the owners in a regular base.

We onle need a owner that is as worse as the second worse in the league to be in a hell of a lott better place...

I guess you are afraid that a new owner is going to be someone that kills reporters and people not agreeing with them in a regular bases. So am I! But Im more willing to take a chance for the win, than stop trying because I'm afraid of losing.

Glazers has been/is a very big fundraiser to trump! Only that is enough for me to take a stand.
No they haven't. :lol:

That's how much has been paid by the club.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
I actually doubt it is to do with fan protests. But let us assume it is. Is it actually good? No.

Firstly, future cash flows are taken into account with investments. The club will need to know they can afford signings before they actually make them. If the sponsor was as close to signing as was claimed, it would have played a role in how much can be spent in one transfer window and the relative wages. Losing a sponsorship deal like this will have an impact on the transfer window.

Another point is that 94% of all out goings are club related. If we assume the dividends will also take a hit (interest won't and will remain at 4% of out goings), that means club-related outgoings will be hit by 98% of that £200m. So, £19.6m loss in revenue per year to go on the club.

Where is the easiest place to save money in football? Transfers. Not signing anyone or reducing transfer purchases is the best way to deal with money shortages. The next best is selling players. This will impact our transfer ability and competitiveness. And it will potentially impact sponsorship deals long term e.g. losing big players through having to sell or not bringing in any new big names.

This will also set a precedent in how sponsors behave with us. This will have a long term impact on revenue through sponsors if it happened multiple times. Demand lowers and so does price. Risk heightens and price lowers.

The other issue with this is, if it was really due to the fans, this will be alarming to potential buyers. The very fact that sponsors will pull out based on fan behaviour will make this a very high risk investment as revenue will be seen to be under threat. This will further limit an already limited pool.

Cutting down the value of the club won't have much impact as it will still cost billions. There are only 2, 755 billionaires in the world and the vast majority wouldn't be able to afford it even if the club's value dropped by a billion due to fan protests. Just an example; it likely won't drop this much based on only losing this sponsorship deal. The precedent could be an issue, though.

Also, the Glazers would still be, essentially, $2.4bn in profit from their initial investment (before taxes) even if it did drop by a billion and then they sold the club. Honestly, I don't think that would trigger them into selling. I think you will start to see how much damage would need to be done to the club to really pressurise their profit, and get them sweating.

In the end, you could damage the club long term and still not get rid of the Glazers.

There are other issues, also, but this post is long enough.
Good post.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
Can't decide if it deserves its own thread, but I'm really curious for all those wanting the Glazers out, what would make United an attractive investment for anyone else?

As someone with a bit of knowledge of this, it's categorically a bad investment. Over the last decade our club - the richest one - hasn't made returns comparable to even a moderately-successful fund. The main cost of operations is player wages - which are accelerating far faster than any inflation. And your main competition doesn't have to make money (Chelsea/City/PSG).

If you were approaching the world with $3bn buring a hole in your wallet, MUFC is by any metric a worse choice than a great deal of other options available to you.

The reason it was such an excellent investment for Glazers is because it COST THEM NOTHING. So taking out 20m a year is actually awesome, even if you ignore the asset value.

Any new owners would have to pay at least a few billion - which if you're buying anything else would mean you'd expect returns of at the very least of $150m per year (more than we make).

I really think people are conflating the management of our football club by Ed Woodward and the board with the ownership strcuture. If we're worth, say, $3bn then $20m dividends each year is less than 1%. That's actually amazing.

So please, convince me there is a billionaire out there or investment vehicle that look at United and doesn't see a high-risk, extremely low-return asset.
Nicely put.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
So absolutely nothing can be done about Old Trafford without sacrificing the next 5 years of the club's development? Even the most pressing concerns can't be repaired because it would cost billions, really?
Could always sell the naming rights.

Would extremists accept that if all money was put into repairing OT?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
Keep the toys in the pram no point making up what you’d like me to have said when I didn’t say that.

I’m just pointing out that complying with the Glazers increases chances of someone picking up where they left off, it’s not a deterrent to oppose them. If the Glazers can’t get away with it I don’t think people will be queuing up to hand over billions to take over from them. And good luck finding banks that will lend billions at favourable interest rates.

It’s nonsensical scaremongering.
So if we don't get a new owner because they'd have more sense than to buy us, you've just damaged/destroyed the club for nothing.

Congratulations.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
for me the perfect owner would be a football and united fan that trusts competent people to manage the club the right way without interfering too much. and he/she shouldnt take money out of the club
:lol:

Maybe Disney should own us, they're good at fairy tales.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
3,624
So in a scenario where Glazers are forced to sell they not only secure a price far in excess of clubs value but someone thinks it’s a good idea to buy club and dump loads of debt on it, seems plausible. Sure fans won’t have anything to say about that.

Not to mention the extortionate interest payments and fact banks probably might think before lending billions they can’t ever reclaim.


The most likely scenario is the club gets relisted, eventually Glazers will want to sell and viable buyers are almost non existent.
Exactly like now only with far larger sums involved. How else are they going to finance a purchase?