Protest at Old Trafford

[JB7]

Then they should work on their messaging because that tweet makes it sound very much like they prefer Qatar. Especially given the structure of Ratcliffes bid.

It literally couldn't be clearer in saying it was not about any preferred bidder and they consider a "full sale" to be a full sale of the Glazer owned shares.

 

[justsomebloke]

It literally couldn't be clearer in saying it was not about any preferred bidder and they consider a "full sale" to be a full sale of the Glazer owned shares.

When I read that, the first thing I'm thinking is "They support Qatar". For the rather obvious reason that theirs is the only bid that encompasses the full sale of the Glazer-owned shares.

 

[JB7]

When I read that, the first thing I'm thinking is "They support Qatar". For the rather obvious reason that theirs is the only bid that encompasses the full sale of the Glazer-owned shares.

That's because you're not reading the text, you're looking past it. It was a message to the Glazer family and any perspective buyers of what the fans want, which is that family gone.

The reality is that both Qatar and Ineos have each made three bids for the club, only one of which has retained the Glazers in any capacity. None of those exact bids will be accepted. The next stage of the process is a period of exclusivity in negotiations for the preferred bidder, if that preferred bidder is Ineos, you can be pretty damn sure they will be trying to buy the full 69% as they won't want the Glazers holding a sizeable percentage any more than anyone else does given that they know they won't invest in the club, so why have them there just to diminish any future return on investment?

 

[Spoony]

Then they should work on their messaging because that tweet makes it sound very much like they prefer Qatar. Especially given the structure of Ratcliffes bid.

They just don't want the Glazers staying in any capacity. It's pure hatred. If Ratcliffe didn't offer them the opportunity to keep a minority stake then there wouldn't be issues with his bid in the eyes of many fans. Personally, I don't want them to stick around either, if Jim tries buying them out further down the line, he'll have to accommodate them. There are too many doubts surrounding Jim's bid. But doesn't equate to wanting Sheikh Jassim.

 

[Lyng]

It literally couldn't be clearer in saying it was not about any preferred bidder and they consider a "full sale" to be a full sale of the Glazer owned shares.

The sentences before that paints a very different picture. Whether that is their intention or not isnt really the point.

 

[justsomebloke]

That's because you're not reading the text, you're looking past it. It was a message to the Glazer family and any perspective buyers of what the fans want, which is that family gone.

The reality is that both Qatar and Ineos have each made three bids for the club, only one of which has retained the Glazers in any capacity. None of those exact bids will be accepted. The next stage of the process is a period of exclusivity in negotiations for the preferred bidder, if that preferred bidder is Ineos, you can be pretty damn sure they will be trying to buy the full 69% as they won't want the Glazers holding a sizeable percentage any more than anyone else does given that they know they won't invest in the club, so why have them there just to diminish any future return on investment?

I'm reading your summation of it, which you intended to make the opposite point to what it's telling me. So I think it's fair to point out that maybe there's a messaging issue here. 99% of the people this initiative gets communicated to isn't going to read the text either.

 

[Red00012]

Then they should work on their messaging because that tweet makes it sound very much like they prefer Qatar. Especially given the structure of Ratcliffes bid.

To be fair They’ve always said full sale well before Qatar bid came in , they’ve never mentioned favouring any potential owners.

 

[JB7]

The sentences before that paints a very different picture. Whether that is their intention or not isnt really the point.

It doesn't paint a different picture though. I agree it's probably not overly well worded but it says they want the Glazer family gone and doesn't indicate any preference to preferred bidder.

I'm reading your summation of it, which you intended to make the opposite point to what it's telling me. So I think it's fair to point out that maybe there's a messaging issue here. 99% of the people this initiative gets communicated to isn't going to read the text either.

That wasn't my summation of it at all, I was explaining why it is too simplistic and frankly wrong to look at a "full sale only" message and think that means "Qatar in". Full sale only has been their message since they started.

 

[Bosws87]

The people arguing the semantics are the same people that wouldn’t get off their arse to be there, I wouldn’t waste my time.

 

[justsomebloke]

It doesn't paint a different picture though. I agree it's probably not overly well worded but it says they want the Glazer family gone and doesn't indicate any preference to preferred bidder.


That wasn't my summation of it at all, I was explaining why it is too simplistic and frankly wrong to look at a "full sale only" message and think that means "Qatar in". Full sale only has been their message since they started.

I'm sure that's true as a description of intention, but again, that's the message it sends.

Also, strictly speaking, if you see "full sale only" as a requirement, and the Qatari bid is the only one that meets that requirement, then you are in effect supporting the Qatari bid. If you don't think you are, then you don't understand the implications of your own position. Saying "this doesn't mean we support one bid over others" doesn't change this, it just puts you in a position of contradicting yourselves.

 

[Maticmaker]

it says they want the Glazer family gone and doesn't indicate any preference to preferred bidder.

Isn't this one of the weaknesses now in the protests?

It seems to have gone beyond, just 'get rid of the Glazers (at any cost)' to who or what sort of owners would satisfy the majority of fans, and this isn't clear enough and whatever many might argue differently, the implication in terms of known bidders is that if its 'Full Sale' or nothing then that has to be an indication that Qatar are in the lead.

It would seem to be sensible if all these disparate supporters groups now focused on putting together a 'united' fans profile of what sort of owners they would like to see take over, and the primary issues they would like to see addressed, i.e some sort of 'template of ownership' around which everybody (or the majority) of fans could rally around.

The battle cry of 'Glazers out' has started the war, but it alone won't win the peace!

 

[JB7]

I'm sure that's true as a description of intention, but again, that's the message it sends.

Also, strictly speaking, if you see "full sale only" as a requirement, and the Qatari bid is the only one that meets that requirement, then you are in effect supporting the Qatari bid. If you don't think you are, then you don't understand the implications of your own position. Saying "this doesn't mean we support one bid over others" doesn't change this, it just puts you in a position of contradicting yourselves.

As I said, none of the current bids will be accepted as they are, the next stage is a period of exclusivity in talks between the seller and preferred bidder. If you can't fathom that, that's on you. Neither bidding party will want the Glazer family owning shares long term, any more than the fanbase would. Full sale only has been a long term message, long before any party made any form of bid for United. Once again, if you can't understand that, it's on you.

Isn't this one of the weaknesses now in the protests?

It seems to have gone beyond, just 'get rid of the Glazers (at any cost)' to who or what sort of owners would satisfy the majority of fans, and this isn't clear enough and whatever many might argue differently, the implication in terms of known bidders is that if its 'Full Sale' or nothing then that has to be an indication that Qatar are in the lead.

It would seem to be sensible if all these disparate supporters groups now focused on putting together a 'united' fans profile of what sort of owners they would like to see take over, and the primary issues they would like to see addressed, i.e some sort of 'template of ownership' around which everybody (or the majority) of fans could rally around.

The battle cry of 'Glazers out' has started the war, but it alone won't win the peace!

Then you've completely misunderstood the message of the protest which was an incredibly United front of "Glazers out", nothing more and nothing less. The people reading further into it than that are the same people who spend matchdays sat at their computers whinging rather than getting out there to either protest or help hone what they believe the message should be.

 

[justsomebloke]

As I said, none of the current bids will be accepted as they are, the next stage is a period of exclusivity in talks between the seller and preferred bidder. If you can't fathom that, that's on you. Neither bidding party will want the Glazer family owning shares long term, any more than the fanbase would. Full sale only has been a long term message, long before any party made any form of bid for United. Once again, if you can't understand that, it's on you.

Calm down. Obviously I understand that. What maybe you should try wrapping your head around is that your messaging is at risk of saying things that are different to what you want it to say.

 

[Rood]

Incorrect; it meant full sale of the Glazers shares. I thought that much was already clear but it was confirmed yesterday for those in the back:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

For the record, there was no discussion about future ownership at the protest that I can remember. Sure there was one clown with that cardboard Qatar sign that seems to have got himself into the pictures but I didn't see him and don't actually recall anyone saying any preference. It's not that people don't care, it's more that there is a split so discussing it creates division which was the opposite of what the Glazer protest needed.

Exactly

I have no idea how anyone could read this Tweet from The 1958 and infer that this is support for Sheikh Jassim - I can only assume they cant read or English isnt their first language.

It’s currently a game of chess and nobody knows what is going to happen.
One thing is certain though the protest yesterday was not about any bidder or preferred bidder.
IT WAS ABOUT REMOVING GLAZER FROM OUR CLUB. NOTHING ELSE.
FULL SALE MEANS FULL SALE OF GLAZER 69% ​

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Exactly

I have no idea how anyone could read this Tweet from The 1958 and infer that this is support for Sheikh Jassim - I can only assume they cant read or English isnt their first language.

It’s currently a game of chess and nobody knows what is going to happen.
One thing is certain though the protest yesterday was not about any bidder or preferred bidder.
IT WAS ABOUT REMOVING GLAZER FROM OUR CLUB. NOTHING ELSE.
FULL SALE MEANS FULL SALE OF GLAZER 69% ​

People read from things what they want to. Anyone that’s against Jim Ratcliffe and his proposal to keep the parasites on are automatically labelled pro Qatar. There’s no middle ground with these folk.

 

[justsomebloke]

People read from things what they want to. Anyone that’s against Jim Ratcliffe and his proposal to keep the parasites on are automatically labelled pro Qatar. There’s no middle ground with these folk.

Or maybe you should consider that the tweet's not actually on the banners at OT, nor sought out by the entirety of humanity as a matter of due diligence, and that when a lot of people read "full sale", they will think that means simply "full sale"? You think this just goes away because you've clarified what you mean on a number of occasions and it's clear to you?

Jesus, if that's how Comms savvy you lot are, it's a bleak outlook for the good cause here.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Or maybe you should consider that the tweet's not actually on the banners at OT, nor sought out by the entirety of humanity as a matter of due diligence, and that when a lot of people read "full sale", they will think that means simply "full sale"? You think this just goes away because you've clarified what you mean on a number of occasions and it's clear to you?

Jesus, if that's how Comms savvy you lot are, it's a bleak outlook for the good cause here.

Full sale means glazers out completely. Whether that’s their shares only or their shares plus the other 31% it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is these cnuts get out. If people are struggling to grasp that then that’s their problem.

 

[justsomebloke]

Full sale means glazers out completely. Whether that’s their shares only or their shares plus the other 31% it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is these cnuts get out. If people are struggling to grasp that then that’s their problem.

Haha, right. Are you even thinking of the communication side of this?

You know that's what it means. I know that's what it means. Probably every man jack on this board know that's what it means.

On the other hand, 99.9% the millions of TV viewers watching a game who get a five-second shot of a banner saying "Full Sale Only!" probably does not know that's what it means. And that is very much the supporter's trust problem, because what they'll think (reasonably, lacking the full context) that means is "100% of the shares", since this is normally the meaning of "Full Sale". And since probably quite a few of them also knows that the Qatari bid is the only one to have that element (which requires no more than generally following news bulletins about United), they'll also (and again reasonably) conclude that's a statement of support for the Qatari bid.

Point: If you don't want people to think that, don't put "Full Sale Only", but find another way to express it. That's all.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Haha, right. Are you even thinking of the communication side of this?

You know that's what it means. I know that's what it means. Probably every man jack on this board know that's what it means.

On the other hand, 99.9% the millions of TV viewers watching a game who get a five-second shot of a banner saying "Full Sale Only!" probably does not know that's what it means. And that is very much the supporter's trust problem, because what they'll think (reasonably, lacking the full context) that means is "100% of the shares", since this is normally the meaning of "Full Sale". And since probably quite a few of them also knows that the Qatari bid is the only one to have that element (which requires no more than generally following news bulletins about United), they'll also (and again reasonably) conclude that's a statement of support for the Qatari bid.

Point: If you don't want people to think that, don't put "Full Sale Only", but find another way to express it. That's all.

I think you’re getting too hung up on this wording mate. The vast majority of Utd fans will have been following this rather closely and know the details of the bids, that’s all that matters. To anyone else who may be watching on tv that are neutrals or whatever, who gives a rats arse how they interpret things? They’re completely irrelevant to this process.

 

[justsomebloke]

I think you’re getting too hung up on this wording mate. The vast majority of Utd fans will have been following this rather closely and know the details of the bids, that’s all that matters. To anyone else who may be watching on tv that are neutrals or whatever, who gives a rats arse how they interpret things? They’re completely irrelevant to this process.

What, with the banners and all, we're basically just talking to ourselves? You actually believe that what people think outside of the hard core of supporters who put in the effort to follow this in detail (which I'm pretty sure are a fairly small proportion of people who consider themselves United fans) is irrelevant to the effectiveness of what you're trying to achieve?

 

[JB7]

What, with the banners and all, we're basically just talking to ourselves? You actually believe that what people think outside of the hard core of supporters who put in the effort to follow this in detail (which I'm pretty sure are a fairly small proportion of people who consider themselves United fans) is irrelevant to the effectiveness of what you're trying to achieve?

" We knew it wasn’t a televised game and we didn’t care. The timing was right with the bid closure. It’s not about journalists, media and TV, its about the fans. It’s always been about the fans and what this club means to them. "

The answers are all in the statement, if only you read it.

 

[justsomebloke]

" We knew it wasn’t a televised game and we didn’t care. The timing was right with the bid closure. It’s not about journalists, media and TV, its about the fans. It’s always been about the fans and what this club means to them. "

The answers are all in the statement, if only you read it.

Okay. So we are talking to ourselves, and no one's trying to achieve something. Great stuff.

 

[JB7]

Seriously, how hard can this be to understand?

PRACTICALLY NO ONE WILL READ YOUR STATEMENT. THEY WILL JUST READ THE BANNER YOU BRING TO OT.

If you can't even be arsed to read a fecking statement then you're as irrelevant as the journalists, media and TV folks referred to.

It's a clear message, if you or people want to misinterpret it that's their/your problem. What are you doing about the ownership of the club? What have you ever done about it?

 

[justsomebloke]

If you can't even be arsed to read a fecking statement then you're as irrelevant as the journalists, media and TV folks referred to.

It's a clear message, if you or people want to misinterpret it that's their/your problem. What are you doing about the ownership of the club? What have you ever done about it?

What have I ever done about it? Well, I've tried to offer helpful criticism to the people who have taken it upon themselves to do this, but unfortunately they seem to think it's the rest of the world's problem if they can't be arsed to express their message in a way that will be correctly understood by the considerable majority of humanity who don't read their bulletins. But apparently they don't matter, so.

 

[JB7]

What have I ever done about it? Well, I've tried to offer helpful criticism to the people who have taken it upon themselves to do this, but unfortunately they seem to think it's the rest of the world's problem if they can't be arsed to express their message in a way that will be correctly understood by the considerable majority of humanity who don't read their bulletins. But apparently they don't matter, so.

So you've done nothing then. Keep patting yourself on the back for a job not done.

 

[justsomebloke]

So you've done nothing then. Keep patting yourself on the back for a job not done.

Oh don't stoop to that, it just comes across as self-absorbed. I really don't want to be abrasive about this, and I naturally appreciate the effort that's being put in for a cause I deeply share. But you lot aren't doing yourselves or the cause any favors by responding with such petulance to being criticised, as if only the exceptional thickness and ignorance of everyone else could possibly motivate questioning your messaging and strategy. The point I'm making, which is a helpful one whether you like it or not, is just be aware of what you're communicating, don't expect the world to read your bulletins and frankly if this is going to achieve anything it shouldn't just be the inner core of supporters talking to themselves. I'm pretty sure they don't need further convincing.

 

[Rood]

What have I ever done about it? Well, I've tried to offer helpful criticism to the people who have taken it upon themselves to do this, but unfortunately they seem to think it's the rest of the world's problem if they can't be arsed to express their message in a way that will be correctly understood by the considerable majority of humanity who don't read their bulletins. But apparently they don't matter, so.

No you havent - you have just posted a load of unhelpful shite on an internet forum

Do you think the fans posting here are in control of the messaging by The 1958? Obviously not

Now it is clear that some fans have misunderstood some of the messages from this protest, personally I think it's all very clear but in response to this The 1958 have posted up some points of clarification:
https://the1958.net/2023/05/01/update-on-the-villa-protest/

If you, or others who arent actually getting involved in the protests, are too lazy to take the initiative to go and read then I'd suggest this thread is not for you anyway

Personally I dont actually agree with everything The 1958 have done and they certainly made some mistakes early on, but this particular protest with a message of fan unity was well organised and communicated so credit to them.

 

[croadyman]

They just don't want the Glazers staying in any capacity. It's pure hatred. If Ratcliffe didn't offer them the opportunity to keep a minority stake then there wouldn't be issues with his bid in the eyes of many fans. Personally, I don't want them to stick around either, if Jim tries buying them out further down the line, he'll have to accommodate them. There are too many doubts surrounding Jim's bid. But doesn't equate to wanting Sheikh Jassim.

Yeah that's why I have issues with his bid,also due to his general silence about handling the debt situation and stadium investment

 

[croadyman]

Full sale means glazers out completely. Whether that’s their shares only or their shares plus the other 31% it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is these cnuts get out. If people are struggling to grasp that then that’s their problem.

Yeah getting them relinquished of any power is the absolute paramount thing

 

[Tango80]

I think the determination to get the Glazers out has clouded their judgement on the most paramount thing in football: do what's best for the club.

For me, yes it reduces Jassims chances of buying the club. However, having that bid on the table also reduces the chances of the Glazers accepting the bid from Elliot, or another minority stake.

Ultimately, one of those scenarios affects United in a negative way, and the other leads to a change in ownership regardless. I know which one I'm picking.

That's the difference between MUST and the 1958 - MUST are intelligent enough to recognize what the priority is. The 1958 lack that intelligence though.

 

[giggs-beckham]

This made me angry the other day. How biased towards football owners can you be.
The other week he started a sentence "With all due respect to the Glazers"

 

[Tango80]

This made me angry the other day. How biased towards football owners can you be.
The other week he started a sentence "With all due respect to the Glazers"

So?

 

[Wrecking ralf]

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere, but what is the time line to expect an answer to the final sale. End of May or something?

 

[Maticmaker]

the protest which was an incredibly United front of "Glazers out",

Yes, no doubt about what the protest originally was aimed at, but time has moved on we now know that the Glazers will go, and go now, if they get the right price. That's what the protest/pressure should now be about, trying to build a head of steam that determines that the Glazers don't sell us down the river... because we all know they are capable of just that.

"Out of the frying pan into the fire" is not the solution United fans want, there are a lot more 'cash-cow' hunters out there to avoid. Now is the time for United fans of all shades of opinion to come together to workout an overview/foundations for the new owners to be measured against, so they know from day 1 what the fans expect.

 

[JB7]

Yes, no doubt about what the protest originally was aimed at, but time has moved on we now know that the Glazers will go, and go now, if they get the right price. That's what the protest/pressure should now be about, trying to build a head of steam that determines that the Glazers don't sell us down the river... because we all know they are capable of just that.

"Out of the frying pan into the fire" is not the solution United fans want, there are a lot more 'cash-cow' hunters out there to avoid. Now is the time for United fans of all shades of opinion to come together to workout an overview/foundations for the new owners to be measured against, so they know from day 1 what the fans expect.

I presume you'll be leading from the front to ensure the next protests are about what happens next then?

 

[Spoony]

I presume you'll be leading from the front to ensure the next protests are about what happens next then?

More fun to do nowt whilst pointing the finger.

 

[Maticmaker]

I presume you'll be leading from the front to ensure the next protests are about what happens next then?

No, I'm too old for that, just stand on the sidelines and shout advice is about all I can manage these days.

My protest days were over after the 'Kill the Bill" (which set up the Industrial Courts, with 'Black' Jack Donaldson presiding)) march down Oxford street (1971) under the AEU/AUEW banner. The trades Unions failed to learn the lesson on that one of 'watching for the goal posts moving'... but perhaps a happy ending when the Industrial Courts were eventually scrapped... that is until Mrs T came to power!

My point is don't keep fighting the same battles, the protests have won some ground, but the end is not yet in sight!

 

[Rood]

Yes, no doubt about what the protest originally was aimed at, but time has moved on we now know that the Glazers will go, and go now, if they get the right price. That's what the protest/pressure should now be about, trying to build a head of steam that determines that the Glazers don't sell us down the river... because we all know they are capable of just that.

"Out of the frying pan into the fire" is not the solution United fans want, there are a lot more 'cash-cow' hunters out there to avoid. Now is the time for United fans of all shades of opinion to come together to workout an overview/foundations for the new owners to be measured against, so they know from day 1 what the fans expect.

This has already been done by MUST several months ago:
https://www.imust.org.uk/Blog/Entry/open-letter-to-potential-bidders-for-manchester-united

 

[sunama]

For those who want the Glazers to stay or remain part owners of the club, mark my words, while they are here, we will not win the EPL.
All they care about is profits and that means getting top 4. That's it.
I couldn't are less about the 4th place trophy. I want us to win the biggest trophies like we did 20 years ago.
These leaches need to be removed with extreme prejudice.
I hated Moyes, but The Glazers are on another level.

Glazers OUT!!!!!

 

[Maticmaker]

This has already been done by MUST several months ago:
https://www.imust.org.uk/Blog/Entry/open-letter-to-potential-bidders-for-manchester-united

Seems like a comprehensive document... have there been any responses from the potential bidders to enter into dialogue with fans representatives?