You go around reading people's posts and nit-picking them a lot, don't you? You find a minor discrepancy, maybe a suspected misused word or intonation, and you nit-pick at it; it wouldn't be as bad, except whether you're correct seems hit and miss. Have you ever considered adding something original to the forum yourself rather than being content to simply go over everyone else's posts and find little criticisms?
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
I am watching this charade. One group playing ball with the yanks; and another group opposing them. In the midst, a lot of misrepresentations by both parties. I dont want to add anything to this thread, because I dont know much facts. I can only make comments if I find somebody is trying a twist; and heck, I have all the right to do it.
So, dont get hot under the collar, mate. Keep rocking.
I didn't twist anything. In an ideal world he'd like a full boycott I think.
Thats what you think. Did he really advocate it? Isnt it a twist if someone said he wants a boycott?
I suggest you read his blog then come back. Do you even know yourself? Anyone is free to come and correct me. Until you actually have a clue yourself please respectfully feck off.
I would point you specifically to the section: "my advice-don't renew".
Yep, that'd do it.Yes. He may have said "Dont renew". But did he say "Dont go for matches?" Cant a fan who does not renew his ST go for matches he wants to watch?
Maybe you dont know the difference between "Dont renew" and "Dont go for matches". Go back to school.
For feck sake. Do one.
Hi there!
Not sure what the debate is here....
Naturally, if like me, you think weakening the matchday revenue base will make a sale by the Glazers more likely then it follows that the more people not renewing and not going the better.
Not sure what the debate is here....
Naturally, if like me, you think weakening the matchday revenue base will make a sale by the Glazers more likely then it follows that the more people not renewing and not going the better.
See anders point below. Thanks anders. Back to school anver you weirdo.
There's no real debate andy. I raised an issue that had already been covered a couple of pages ago though I'm not sure properly answered and anver is weird.
Andy. The guy said you had asked for a boycott of matches. Then he also said you had asked for a non-renewal of STs, but he thought that, that implied a boycott of matches.
I maintained that a non renewal of STs is not necessarily a boycott of matches. So, thats it. No debate. Just a discussion, where the guy got a bit agitated; so a bit of name calling from him.
The more not going the better says andy. That's a boycott. You've got brain aids.Andy. The guy said you had asked for a boycott of matches. Then he also said you had asked for a non-renewal of STs, but he thought that, that implied a boycott of matches.
I maintained that a non renewal of STs is not necessarily a boycott of matches. So, thats it. No debate. Just a discussion, where the guy got a bit agitated; so a bit of name calling from him.
Your logic is flawed, anders. You cannot justify action by simply stating that it makes the completion of your aim more likely; you have to weigh up the level of risk involved and compare it to the possibility of a favourable outcome. You know this, surely. Considering that the owners can control EBITDA by limiting squad investment, and that meeting EBITDA targets has to be their top priority, wouldn't any detriment to revenue caused by boycotts just be hitting the budget for squad investment and not the Glazers' right to dividends? Perhaps, for example, wages will be capped to make up the shortfall in attendance figures. You're not going to take the Glazers by suprise here, they will make up the figures and meet their targets even if it means restricting spending and weakening the squad as a consequence. I'm asking, how have you come to the conclusion that this seemingly long-shot is worth the risk? If your attitude is such that you're willing to do anything in order to increase your chances of success, regardless of possible negative outcomes, then you are in no position to be giving out advice to other fans.
I think Cider has a point here. The Glazers may just not care for the health of the squad. They could weaken the squad and line their pockets with whatever they could get their hands on.
So you are arguing the Glazers will be cnutish if we boycott then does that not prove that the boycott is valid ie they are cnutish in their behaviour in the way they run the club.
I didn't call for a "boycott" because it's a) unrealistic and b) a loaded term.
My advice was that supporters should exercise some financial muscle be it not going at all or going less.
I fully expect OT to be full vs. Newcastle, but if ST sales are down (say) 5-10k, meaning that over the season the Glazers can't rely on the same guaranteed levels of income as in previous years, they'll be more questioning of their business plan.
This all has to be considered in the context of the economy and its impact on exec/corporate sales. They represent c. 40% of ticket revenue but only c. 10% of seats. If, as seems to be the case anecdotally, renewals here are down sharply, then normal ST holders not renewing too (or going match by match) starts to make a real difference.
As for the impact on the football side of the business, I take the view that any hit will be felt by the Glazers first. As people point out, a certain level of success [please insert own view on what that is here] is required to keep the whole thing on track. They won't just slash the size of the squad / sell the two or three highest earners just to ensure dividends - it would be suicidally damaging to the "brand" and increase the risk of a finish outside the top 4 with all that entails.
My advice was that supporters should exercise some financial muscle be it not going at all or going less.
I fully expect OT to be full vs. Newcastle, but if ST sales are down (say) 5-10k, meaning that over the season the Glazers can't rely on the same guaranteed levels of income as in previous years, they'll be more questioning of their business plan.
This all has to be considered in the context of the economy and its impact on exec/corporate sales. They represent c. 40% of ticket revenue but only c. 10% of seats. If, as seems to be the case anecdotally, renewals here are down sharply, then normal ST holders not renewing too (or going match by match) starts to make a real difference.
As for the impact on the football side of the business, I take the view that any hit will be felt by the Glazers first. As people point out, a certain level of success [please insert own view on what that is here] is required to keep the whole thing on track. They won't just slash the size of the squad / sell the two or three highest earners just to ensure dividends - it would be suicidally damaging to the "brand" and increase the risk of a finish outside the top 4 with all that entails.
So the £75m credit facility is just a red herring - that will never be tapepd into.
If they don't care isn't best that we get rid of them then?
Exactly. But, I feel they will bleed the club dry before they sell. The brand United will remain intact, but there will be a lot of repair work to do.
That's a hilarious comment, real sixth form debating society stuff!
Who said anything about doing "anything".
And even if it were "anything", why does that invalidate anyone's ability to give advice? Anyone can advise anyone, the advice doesn't have to be taken after all.
I could argue that those advising people to renew are risking the club's long-term future, but I wouldn't say that somehow should bar those people from saying what they think supporters should do.
Well, if you suspect that a dog has it in him to kill a baby, you don't then dangle a baby in front of it just to make sure; and if you do, who's to blame for the baby's death, the dog or yourself?
Well, this was your justification...
It was a simple statement of logic; if (a) will increase the chances of success then (a) should be done. You left no room for debate, no gray area, no recognition of risk - you spoke simply and clearly; if boycotts increase the chances of a sale then boycotts there should be. It's a simple but extremely narrow-minded concept, and i question the value of your advice when your logic is so fundamentaly flawed as this
The fact is, anders, you seem to really struggle to justify your own advising of boycotts. If you cannot justify your advice with satisfactory explanations for it, then why do you give it?
So all along you have been supporting this dog which is an apt metaphor for the Glazers and if we boycott, this will aggravate the aforementioned dog even further so the best course of action is to put down this dangerous dog?
Except you cannot put down the dog because you're a mouse.
When the dog is put down the fleas (you) go with it.
You're now a genital wart.
Lol. I'm not sure where this is going but I like it!
Is it not the case that the club actually makes more money from people buying tickets on a match by match basis than STs?
Because those buying match by match have to sign up to One United (at a cost of £30 to £38) - also I think (but not sure) they have charged £5 extra for single match tickets in the past?
I do agree with your comment that the Glazers are likely to lose out personally before the team loses out - keeping the team competitive will be their first priority. I have said this all along and it is why I am confident that they will always back Fergie in the transfer market whenever he asks for cash.
No; if they go on general sale, the general public can buy them.
It's not in the Glazers' interests to weaken the squad. They need the team to be doing well enough to keep sponsors and "customers" happy. If they miss a target, they'll borrow to buy a player. Either that or they'd be going against what they said about always backing Sir Alex in the market.
I just checked and General Sale tickets are £5 more.
My point is that if the ground is still full (as Andersred says he expects) then people not renewing and going match by match will actually make the Glazers more money (through One United memberships and increase prices for General Sale tickets) - good plan eh?
But I was a mouse before! Damn just like your weak and puerile arguments they shift and change.
I seem to have moved down the evolutionary road from a mouse to a wart but I still have a way to go to get to where you live in the anus of Malcom Glazer. Does GCHQ keep you company down there?
You want to factor into interest of receiving the money in advance and banking it. Also £100 today is not worth £100 in a years time.
Also you don't need to commit to the ACS.
Yeh great plan!
It is true that banking the ST money upfront is a benefit that needs to be taken into account but I am just showing that this plan doesnt seem to be so well thought out and could actually end up making the Glazers more money over the course of the season.
So let me see one the one hand I have ST money which I collect in advance vs an unreliable income stream.
Taking your plan to a logical conclusion then why wouldnt the Glazers just not sell any ST and wait for people to buy on the day. Your logic would dicatte they would earn more.
Seriously its not even an argument more than an exercise in futility. Heck I could make an argument for Greece as a bastion of good governance doesn't mean its true.
Another Glazer tax then, because it wasn't like that when I got 3 tickets for the FA Cup game against Boro in Jan 2005.
Incidentally, had my season ticket invitation through the door this morning. It would appear that the only two areas with limited availability for adult tickets are the Family Stand and top tier North Stand.
