Fans who were against today's protests

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
56,284
Location
Peng a leng.
Why? I've just said I'm in favour of a compulsory purchase order with the Glazers compensated based on what they put in (minus what they've extracted) - we could even pay interest on their net investment.

I reckon that's makes the club a much more affordable option for a share offering. And yes, we'd need a lot of luck to see it happen. It still wouldn't be charity though.

I would love it, but is that even remotely possible??
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,242
Location
Not far enough
Then don't buy a football club, buy a shopping mall instead?

United funds itself and the Glazers (and their bankers). Most clubs don't even do that. Maybe football clubs aren't like most businesses.
Ok, why would any billionaire buy a football club then?
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,463
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Not arguing against you:

In order to get to 2 you're going to see staff lose jobs
If the Glazers ever stoop that low, then threaten to crowdfund to pay those staff.

-players sold to balance the books
If we work the publicity angle correctly, this becomes virtually impossible for the Glazers as it'll make them look weak and petty, like a spoiled rich villain prince in a Robin-Hood type movie. Granted, they are pretty stupid.

ticket prices going up etc.
If the fans unite en masse and boycott attendance (aside from season ticket holders who don't want to lose their spots, with whom personally I sympathize with - of course it'd be amazing if they all banded together and gave up those spots 'for the club') then A. it doesn't matter what the Glazers do to ticket prices, and B. they lose huge ground in the optics war right there by raising prices.

Again, not arguing against. Just brainstorming.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
19,796
Ok, why would any billionaire buy a football club then?
Political reasons to access the UK :lol: and sports washing, are two reasons.

I see where you are coming from - a primary driver for some club owners is the financial gain.

In my opinion fans would not have a problem with that if during that process, the right investments were being made both on the club infrastructure (stadium/staff/etc) and on the sporting side (transfers/ethos/academy).

If owners came in to benefit financially, but made the required investments to continue with keeping the club at the top whilst going on to appreciate the monetary value of the entity itself, then everybody wins. But Glazers don't do that.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
111,437
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Which brings the question of "market price" into doubt. What's a market price if people won't pay it. The 4B figure is all about forward projections based on imaginary revenue coming one day.

It's not based on a football team that needs most of the annual profit reinvested just to stand still. It's certainly not based on a club that needs to spend heavily to bring its stadium up to date or to improve Carrington in line with other comparable clubs.

There's a phrase about, "never try and catch a falling knife," and that's where the Glazer's stand today - their investment has peaked. The more uncomfortable we make the covid recovery, there more likely some of the Glazer tribe are to blink.

So the Glazer’s blink and we wait for some unbelievably wealthy mug to elbow his way to the top of the catching a falling knife queue?

Even at a fraction of the current market price the club does not look like a quick or easy win for any new owners. Second in the league and in a Europa League final so tiny margins for error when it comes to improved success on the pitch. Net spend on transfers of three quarters of a billion quid over the last 8 years (second only to City in the PL, nearly twice as much as the club in third and more than almost every other club in Europe) so they’re going to have to invest a tonne of cash to match the Glazer’s spending, never mind surpass it. And a stadium that badly needs investment even without increasing capacity.

I can see the Glazers feeling jaded about owning the club and willing to listen to offers. What I struggle to see is where those offers will come from.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,822
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
On this 50+1 thing.

1. How does they allocate the shares?
2. Why's jack got to represent the fans and not john?
3. Do they have to put up their own capital if the club needs injection of cash?
4. Do they decide on how much transfer kitty we have?
5. Do they decide who's the coach?
6. Does fans ownership transferable? What if you're part of the 51 and you're dead. Does your leicester supporting nephew suddenly got the shares?
7. If they're member of the board, do they get salary? Or dividend? Reimbursement for official meeting?
8. What veto power do they have? If ronaldo wants out, saf decided to sell him, can the fans says no?
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,242
Location
Not far enough
Political reasons to access the UK :lol: and sports washing, are two reasons.

I see where you are coming from - generally speaking it is also for an owner in sport to benefit financially from the club it's bought. And that too can be a primary driver in certain owners. In my opinion fans would not have a problem with that if during that process, the right investments were being made both on the club infrastructure (stadium/staff/etc) and on the sporting side (transfers/ethos/academy).

If owners came in to benefit financially, but made the required investments to continue with keeping the club at the top whilst going on to appreciate the monetary value of the club itself, then everybody wins. But Glazers don't do that.
And how do you define "the right investments"? Isn't that subjective? I, personally, disagree with most of the transfer wishes on here. When it comes to the staff, I am pretty content with decisions being made. As for the stadium, can't say much because I don't know what is needed, expected, desired. But I do know that the club has a budget. And that budget is spent across many areas, some of which directly affect sporting results, others do not. I would count the stadium towards the ones that do not directly affect sporting results and thus financial performance if investments have been lacking.
 

Bilbo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
11,934
Hey, we just want owners who don’t take so much money out of the club and understand it a bit better.

There’s two possible positive outcomes from organised and sustained protesting. 1 The current ownership improves itself. 2 The club is sold.

If the club is sold to someone worse then it’s an all time backfire. And, it’s true, there are no perfect outcomes. But there are two kinds of people in this world: those who accept the status quo and those who try to change it.
There's been a lot of talk about being part of the solution or you're part of the problem, and your last sentence also touches on this notion that 'trying' is better than not trying, but what are people actually trying to achieve here?

I think there's an awful lot of people around that haven't thought this through at all.

Let's protest! Okay what are you hoping will happen? 100 people will give 100 different answers

Get them out! Okay who is out there that wants to buy this club and has good intentions for it?

Stop watching the team and buying the products! Are people really comfortable with damaging the club to a point where we could never again hope to compete for the top prizes? For what? To get one set of owners out and have zero plan for what happens after that?

These protests could do two positive things. Make sure the Glazers never consider a super league again and make them become better owners. That's it. That would be a big win for all of us, but people aren't protesting for that. They are recklessly gambling on the clubs future with no plan. That's worse than what the Glazers are doing IMO.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
5,178
Has anyone given any thought into who could be taking over? Or is it smiply a "deal it when it happens" type of thing.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
49,546
Location
Hope, We Lose
Not arguing against you:



If the Glazers ever stoop that low, then threaten to crowdfund to pay those staff.



If we work the publicity angle correctly, this becomes virtually impossible for the Glazers as it'll make them look weak and petty, like a spoiled rich villain prince in a Robin-Hood type movie. Granted, they are pretty stupid.



If the fans unite en masse and boycott attendance (aside from season ticket holders who don't want to lose their spots, with whom personally I sympathize with - of course it'd be amazing if they all banded together and gave up those spots 'for the club') then A. it doesn't matter what the Glazers do to ticket prices, and B. they lose huge ground in the optics war right there by raising prices.

Again, not arguing against. Just brainstorming.
Fair enough, I'm encouraged that someone has some ideas to deal with the inevitable problems that will arise. But I do think the Glazers will do everything it takes to stay and wont mind looking bad one bit. And even when they are losing money they'll be expecting to make money as soon as the fans give up, so it'll be a long period of time playing chicken. Because as long as they dont give up, they can go back to making money and its only money lost if they quit
 

jojojo

JoJoJoJoJoJo
Staff
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
34,034
Location
Welcome to Manchester reception committee
I would love it, but is that even remotely possible??
Highly unlikely for us. I just despise the idea that the only way of getting back the thing we paid to build relies on charitable billionaires.

I'll settle for hamstringing their freedom of action, and removing their ability to split up the club's assets or take out any more money. That might also be impossible but if we don't start now, while the door is slightly open (due to their own goal with ESL and the mood due to covid) then there will be even less chance next year.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
19,796
And how do you define "the right investments"? Isn't that subjective? I, personally, disagree with most of the transfer wishes on here. When it comes to the staff, I am pretty content with decisions being made. As for the stadium, can't say much because I don't know what is needed, expected, desired. But I do know that the club has a budget. And that budget is spent across many areas, some of which directly affect sporting results, others do not. I would count the stadium towards the ones that do not directly affect sporting results and thus financial performance if investments have been lacking.
It's not subjective no. I think it's quite obvious.

You spend on maintaining the stadium, which is obvious.
You spend on the academy - obvious.
You keep businessmen on the business side, and footballing people on the football side - obvious.
You maintain the identity of how we want to play - obvious.
You spend at a level that is expected from our club, that we were always able to do - obvious.
You don't lay on additional debt on the club without proper reason - obvious.

Glazers came in, leveraged a takeover, then took out more loans to finance purchases, made 80% shit purchases on top (because they failed to lay-out a proper hierarchy at the club) and use our money to pay off the interest whilst taking out hefty dividends on top to line their own pockets.

They merged the footballing and the business side, they employed a non-footballing brain at the top level and allowed for a huge disconnect on the footballing side of the club. They ignored the academy for years and allowed it to deteriorate until a recent shakeup. They communicate feck all to fans. I mean come on, they don't even fix a leaky roof in the fecking stadium for fecksake. At Manchester United, which was the biggest club in the world at the time of takeover!?

None of this is subjective, it's all dead obvious.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
5,760
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
Fair enough, I'm encouraged that someone has some ideas to deal with the inevitable problems that will arise. But I do think the Glazers will do everything it takes to stay and wont mind looking bad one bit. And even when they are losing money they'll be expecting to make money as soon as the fans give up, so it'll be a long period of time playing chicken. Because as long as they dont give up, they can go back to making money and its only money lost if they quit
There’s the middle option which is they are forced to make concessions. That will happen in my opinion - as much as I feel disappointment for the players and staff that the game got cancelled yesterday was one hell of a powerful message that’ll bring them to the table. They’re the only owners in the PL who have invested 0 in the club they own and take out dividends - even FSG have invested 100m.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
83,927
Location
Barrow In Furness
Had no problem with the protest, but did not agree with them entering OT and barricading the players in their hotels. Think we had a lot of support from other fans until then. Walking round OT swigging from a can is not helping. We will just be portrayed by the press as a load of northern p*ssheads with little intelligence, which is not the case in the majority of cases and the reason for the protest will be lost. They have to keep drumming it into people heads about why they are protesting. All they are talking about today is two policemen getting hurt and the games being called off, not the root cause of it.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
13,906
It's very easy to belittle the protests by with glib whataboutism and easy comments on who will replace the Glazers.

The same people patronizing protestors for not thinking about how bad new owners might be, were last week mocking protestors for how pointless and ineffective any protest would be.

Now fans have mobilised and the world has sat up to pay attention. The reality that fans can make themselves heard and have a real impact on their club is there for all to see, so these people need a new argument to enable their meekness.

They don't consider that no billionaire is going to look at a mass, fan led revolt against another billionaire, and think to himself that he can just nip in and do what he likes. This a a line drawn in the sand - a fan base standing up and showing that we know our power and worth, and we won't accept being taken for granted anymore. Not by the Glazers and not by any other leech with a big bank account either.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
5,891
I've surmised that those who want the Glazers gone at any cost are hoping that eventually we have the transfer strategy of Barcelona but not the youth academy philosophy. After all, how are any youth players getting in the team when you're buying 3+ world class players every year?
The point is had they invested after Ronaldo and Tevez left we may never have slipped so far behind. The years after that we never replaced Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Scholes,
Giggs and others. Our team from 2013 to 2016 was shocking and it was down to the lack of transfer spend in the years prior. We had so many holes Van Gaal ended up blowing money just so had a squad of players.

And any spending after that is defined by the manager they brought in. They knew Mourinho would want to blow millions and let him. Then pulled the plug, sacked him and cost the club another £25m just to release him from his contract. A contract that had just been extended a year before. The timing of their decision to allow spending is the reason why our transfer spend is so erratic.The likes of Souness go on about our net spend but the reality is we had to replace world class players coming to the end of their career, had no decent youth players coming through, and a squad of players on overinflated contracts and not good enough. How could we sell them?

I want the club to focus on the youth side AND sign the best players, like all top class teams do. The fact that when any world class player is available, United are not even in contention should annoy any Manchester United. After all we are labelled the biggest club in the world football.

This isn’t just about transfer spending. The Glazers don’t have any interest in football at all. They don’t communicate to fans. They allow some useless people to run the club for them without any consequences of poor management. They have been at the forefront of the super league idea. All they care about it making money. And as Gary Neville said yesterday if that’s their only intention sell up and buy something else because Manchester United means a lot more to millions of people than just profits.
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,463
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Highly unlikely for us. I just despise the idea that the only way of getting back the thing we paid to build relies on charitable billionaires.

I'll settle for hamstringing their freedom of action, and removing their ability to split up the club's assets or take out any more money. That might also be impossible but if we don't start now, while the door is slightly open (due to their own goal with ESL and the mood due to covid) then there will be even less chance next year.
Forget four billion. Pay five billion to put jojojo and @Spoony in an octagon with the six Glazers.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,242
Location
Not far enough
It's not subjective no. I think it's quite obvious.

You spend on maintaining the stadium, which is obvious.
So, what needs to be spent on the stadium and hasn't been? And why?

You spend on the academy - obvious.
And the club hasn't spent on the academy? Or not enough? Why?

You keep businessmen on the business side, and footballing people on the football side - obvious.
Has this not been happening already? If not, what makes you say that?

You maintain the identity of how we want to play - obvious.
What does "identity of how we want to play" even mean? We changed that identity numerous times under Sir Alex' years.

You spend at a level that is expected from our club, that we were always able to do - obvious.
So, spending the second most out of all clubs in the world is not enough?

You don't lay on additional debt on the club without proper reason - obvious.
"Without proper reason" being key. The Glazers bought the club with a leveraged buy-out. That's a very proper reason if you ask me.

Glazers came in, leveraged a takeover, then took out more loans to finance purchases, made 80% shit purchases on top (because they failed to lay-out a proper hierarchy at the club) and use our money to pay off the interest whilst taking out hefty dividends on top to line their own pockets.
What "more loans to finance purchases" do you refer to?

Those "80% shit purchases" are managers' failings, no? What would a "proper hierarchy" do? Make the transfers without considering the managers? That doesn't sound like a great idea.

"Our money" means the club's money, right? If so, why wouldn't the club's owners take dividends out of the club's money? It's not like it stopped the club from spending insanely.

They merged the footballing and the business side, they employed a non-footballing brain at the top level and allowed for a huge disconnect on the footballing side of the club. They ignored the academy for years and allowed it to deteriorate until a recent shakeup.
Can you tell me what is the footballing background of Granovskaia, Perez, Laporte, Nasser Al-Khelaifi (PSG President), Ferran Soriano (City CEO)?

They communicate feck all to fans. I mean come on, they don't even fix a leaky roof in the fecking stadium for fecksake. At Manchester United, which was the biggest club in the world at the time of takeover!?

None of this is subjective, it's all dead obvious.
Can you give me an example of a club that communicates "better" to their fans?
 

Escobar

Poster originally known as Michel04
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
25,190
Location
La-La-Land
I doubt there are fans agaibst the protest. I think there are many fans, myself invluded, who are for the protest but not at all costs (violence, stealing, etc).
 

ManchesterYoda

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
731
What do you think fans should do instead? I'd love to see some alternatives.
Put all their energy into organizing a 100% fan takeover bid. Focus on a positive "you can own part of the club you love" message rather than an angry negative "Glazers out" message.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
19,796
So, what needs to be spent on the stadium and hasn't been? And why?
Have you been to Old Trafford? Honestly, this doesn't need an answer if you've been but in case you haven't, the seats are absolutely knackered now, so much of the steel is rusted badly and various parts of the seating is under a leaking roof. There has been so much attention drawn to this by regular United journalists too, be it Ogden, Mitten or Whitwell.
And the club hasn't spent on the academy? Or not enough? Why?
It was outright ignored up until 2016 if I'm not mistaken, before a shakeup.
Has this not been happening already? If not, what makes you say that?
No, it hasn't. They employed Ed Woodward who was a banker and only involved on the commercials of the business as the CEO. Gary Neville said yesterday too, that before the Glazers came the business structure of the club wasn't even at Old Trafford, it was kept completely separate. Now though they've merged the whole thing and there's a huge disconnect on the footballing side of things. Not least because they gave a non-footballing CEO full remit of the footballing side, which you don't see at PSG, City, Spurs, Liverpool or even Arsenal.
What does "identity of how we want to play" even mean? We changed that identity numerous times under Sir Alex' years.
We have tweaked a lot under SAF but we were always a team that had top class grit and defence whilst being direct in our play, endorsing width and urging creative brilliance in the final third. SAF tweaked his tactics but some things never changed. Ed Woodward can be granted for Moyes failure because he was SAF's choice. But he misjudged the identity completely by going for LVG (who complained about a lack of support, by the way), then he really misjudged what we're about by going for Mourinho. In that process Glazers refused to bring in a DoF for oversight on the football structure, and that's on them and no one else.
So, spending the second most out of all clubs in the world is not enough?
I'm sorry for being patronising but please UNDERSTAND OUR CLUB.
We are NOT spending a lot of money because of the Glazers - we were able to spend the most before and if anything the Glazers have LIMITED our reach because of the debt they've laid on the club. They are taking a lot more OUT of the club than what they put IN to the club, so of course, it's not good enough.
"Without proper reason" being key. The Glazers bought the club with a leveraged buy-out. That's a very proper reason if you ask me.
No, it's not. Because it's a takeover that should not have passed the fit and proper test in the first place. And even if you agree it was, they have taken more loans since taking over the club which has feck all to do with the initial financing.
Those "80% shit purchases" are managers' failings, no? What would a "proper hierarchy" do? Make the transfers without considering the managers? That doesn't sound like a great idea.
Now I'm sure you're not understanding the sport, I'm sorry. If you implement an infrastructure that ignores the footballing side of things and then end up wasting money, that's on you. Not on the managers. Managers not suitable for the club had the owner's blessing, and they take accountability for that. That's why you need a director of football, which the Glazers never endorsed. So quite obviously, the buck ends with them.
"Our money" means the club's money, right? If so, why wouldn't the club's owners take dividends out of the club's money? It's not like it stopped the club from spending insanely.
I don't think even you know what you're debating at this stage.
Can you tell me what is the footballing background of Granovskaia, Perez, Laporte, Nasser Al-Khelaifi (PSG President), Ferran Soriano (City CEO)?
Please google who actually influences the sporting decisions of your club examples and then come back. You need a strong revision of understanding infrastructure here - for example Soriano is the City CEO but their owners had ensured Tixi has the remit of the footballing side. PSG's footballing director is ex player/manager Leonardo. Liverpool have Michael Edwards. Barcelona are a good example of a badly run club, but when they were successful they had Tixi at the helm. Real Madrid is again not comparable, they are owned by socios who elect a President. If fans are not happy they have the power to overthrow the president. Maria is like Ed, and she's also not a glowing reference on how to spend well to be fair.
Can you give me an example of a club that communicates "better" to their fans?
There aren't a lot that communicate better to the fans outside of the fan owned ones, but that's the point - the general structure is dead wrong. This particular point wasn't something I was limiting to Manchester United but speaking on behalf of the top 6.
 
Last edited:

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
1,581
There's been a lot of talk about being part of the solution or you're part of the problem, and your last sentence also touches on this notion that 'trying' is better than not trying, but what are people actually trying to achieve here?

I think there's an awful lot of people around that haven't thought this through at all.

Let's protest! Okay what are you hoping will happen? 100 people will give 100 different answers

Get them out! Okay who is out there that wants to buy this club and has good intentions for it?

Stop watching the team and buying the products! Are people really comfortable with damaging the club to a point where we could never again hope to compete for the top prizes? For what? To get one set of owners out and have zero plan for what happens after that?

These protests could do two positive things. Make sure the Glazers never consider a super league again and make them become better owners. That's it. That would be a big win for all of us, but people aren't protesting for that. They are recklessly gambling on the clubs future with no plan. That's worse than what the Glazers are doing IMO.
I don’t disagree with most of that. And I think there is an element of just wanting change - being willing to take a chance that the alternative isn’t even worse. The alternative being (quite literally) anything that isn’t the Glazers. Risky.

I said in earlier posts that, for as long as they’re here, there’s no real distinction between The Club (as an entity rather than a concept) and The Glazers and to hurt the Glazers we have to seriously hurt the club which is pretty unpalatable.

I don’t get involved in group protests, I’d more likely vote with my feet or my wallet. And the truth is, apart from the super league fiasco, I’ve enjoyed being a fan very much over the last year or two, more than at any time for probably 20 years. But I have sympathy with the peaceful protestors because The Glazers have mostly been at odds with my concept of The Club.

The Club has made some very good decisions over the last couple of years but still, with The Glazers, it just doesn’t feel quite right. In that sense, I can’t be fundamentally against people who want change even if they have no clue what a new order could (or even should) look like.

But I’m dead against the shambolic nature of the protest and all criminal (or otherwise dangerous) behaviour by the minority. I’m sickened by the attitude that a bit of harmless violence and vandalism is justified in the face of ten years of The Club being “badly run” because tragedies are not rare when protests cease to be peaceful.

I suppose it’s a pretty complex situation.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
1,581
In order to get to 2 you're going to see staff lose jobs, players sold to balance the books, ticket prices going up etc. So even if nothing happens, no improved ownership, no sale in 2 years of protests its still a huge negative for everyone connected to the club
I’m not sure you can draw any of those conclusions. But there could well be all manner of very negative outcomes.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
9,286
Football is a commodity to be sold and you are just a consumer, so shut the feck up and buy the fecking merchandise!

If you're serious about getting the Glazers out the ONLY protest that they will ever take notice of is one that hits them in the place they care most about, their bottom line.

They gave two fecks about that protest yesterday. In fact, they probably enjoyed it in some sadistic way. Man United logo covering the back pages of every newspaper in the world. You can't buy that kind of coverage and publicity. They don't care its negative, they just care that the brand is being publicised in some way.

Stop buying jerseys, stop watching them on TV, unfollow them on social media, stop going to games, don't renew your memberships or season tickets. The only protests that will make these feckers leave.
 
Last edited:

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
4,049
Certain objective has been achieved. The game will be re-scheduled, rumour said this Tues. Which means that our Best 11 will have to play 2 games in 2 days, advantage to Roma, or we will have to send our U21 to be slaughtered by Liverpool, great news to Liverpool. I think we have too many Liverpool lovers pretending to be Utd fan
Getting the Glazers out is more important than winning games. I would happily get relegated if it meant getting a decent owner.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,605
What do you think fans should do instead? I'd love to see some alternatives.
The Glazers and their cronies scored a massive 'own-goal' with the Super league idea, in one fatal stroke it brought together in opposition football fans all over the UK. At last it could be shown what we had been saying for ages, some owners were out to change English/European football forever into a NAFL model, using the clubs as 'cash-cows'. The coming together of fans wouldn't have lasted long we know, but long enough to put both the Government and the owners under the cosh. Legislation is the way forward, its the only way.

Unfortunately yesterday a few, albeit well meaning idiots, surrendered the initiative, anyone who wants to have a dig at our club now has the pictures of our own fans trashing the pitch, the hallowed 'theatre-of-dreams' turf.
UEFA (should it wish to) could now penalise us for being unable to control access and egress to our ground and hence put at risk the safety of fans and ban us from all European competitions next year,
Scenes showing policeman and stewards being attacked may not convey the whole message, but who in the press is interested in the truth, it will raise the anti and invite more criticism of the method of protest rather than the substance of the protest.

I have a feeling the Glazers and their ilk will learn from their own goal, will we?
 

12OunceEpilogue

In perfect harmony
Scout
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
13,556
Location
Wigan
So, what needs to be spent on the stadium and hasn't been? And why?


And the club hasn't spent on the academy? Or not enough? Why?


Has this not been happening already? If not, what makes you say that?


What does "identity of how we want to play" even mean? We changed that identity numerous times under Sir Alex' years.


So, spending the second most out of all clubs in the world is not enough?


"Without proper reason" being key. The Glazers bought the club with a leveraged buy-out. That's a very proper reason if you ask me.


What "more loans to finance purchases" do you refer to?

Those "80% shit purchases" are managers' failings, no? What would a "proper hierarchy" do? Make the transfers without considering the managers? That doesn't sound like a great idea.

"Our money" means the club's money, right? If so, why wouldn't the club's owners take dividends out of the club's money? It's not like it stopped the club from spending insanely.


Can you tell me what is the footballing background of Granovskaia, Perez, Laporte, Nasser Al-Khelaifi (PSG President), Ferran Soriano (City CEO)?


Can you give me an example of a club that communicates "better" to their fans?
As far as I can logically follow the devil's advocate, 'better the devil you know' argument it's that the protesters are a many-headed beast with lots of different half-envisaged ideas about what our ownership model could look like in the future. There is not a clear plan of action for the protests now nor what a transition from bad Glazers to good, United-minded owners would look like. These are all fair points; this stuff clearly needs more serious thought than a few placards with '50+1' written on them.

However while you can rightly ask many questions of those who are pro-protest the point you've made in bold above is beyond the pale for me. The leveraged buyout was an absolute disgrace and I can't quite believe a United fan would even pay lip service towards defending it.

It's very easy to belittle the protests by with glib whataboutism and easy comments on who will replace the Glazers.

The same people patronizing protestors for not thinking about how bad new owners might be, were last week mocking protestors for how pointless and ineffective any protest would be.

Now fans have mobilised and the world has sat up to pay attention. The reality that fans can make themselves heard and have a real impact on their club is there for all to see, so these people need a new argument to enable their meekness.

They don't consider that no billionaire is going to look at a mass, fan led revolt against another billionaire, and think to himself that he can just nip in and do what he likes. This a a line drawn in the sand - a fan base standing up and showing that we know our power and worth, and we won't accept being taken for granted anymore. Not by the Glazers and not by any other leech with a big bank account either.
I couldn't agree more, and I've agreed with everything I've read from you in the past 24 hours mate.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
13,906
I couldn't agree more, and I've agreed with everything I've read from you in the past 24 hours mate.
Cheers bud. I need to work on recognising the good stuff that the majority on here are saying and showing, rather than getting so frustrated at those who aren't.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,242
Location
Not far enough
As far as I can logically follow the devil's advocate, 'better the devil you know' argument it's that the protesters are a many-headed beast with lots of different half-envisaged ideas about what our ownership model could look like in the future. There is not a clear plan of action for the protests now nor what a transition from bad Glazers to good, United-minded owners would look like. These are all fair points; this stuff clearly needs more serious thought than a few placards with '50+1' written on them.

However while you can rightly ask many questions of those who are pro-protest the point you've made in bold above is beyond the pale for me. The leveraged buyout was an absolute disgrace and I can't quite believe a United fan would even pay lip service towards defending it.



I couldn't agree more, and I've agreed with everything I've read from you in the past 24 hours mate.
I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what a football club actually is. To me, it's a business that serves entertainment to its customers (fans) and in parallel serves the fans as a product to its other customers (advertisers, sponsors, etc.). As a business, a football club can definitely be bought with a leveraged buy-out. Fans aren't happy with the debt, that's cool but it is a business decision and it hasn't stopped the club from investing massive amounts into the squad.
 

ManchesterYoda

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
731
Getting the Glazers out is more important than winning games. I would happily get relegated if it meant getting a decent owner.
And would you be willing to give up all the trophies we've won under the Glazers if it meant getting a decent owner?
I disagree with you completely.
 

M15 Red.

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
498
Stop. Watching. The. Games.

Once you understand that the fans are the product that is being sold to advertisers and business as (viewers) you'll get why these protests do absolutely feck all. If the viewership to each United game takes a 30% hit, how can they sell commercial deals for the same value? They can't. How can they justify an increase TV money? They can't. It damages the product. Instead it is just an excuse for people to act in a yobbish manner while justifying it in the name of a "cause". Best swing by the off license to get a four pack of Stella en route to a protest.

I stand by this, the absolute worst thing about football is, by far, the fans.
But yesterday's protest did damage the viewership. The biggest game in English football was cancelled. Commercial partners will not be happy. Broadcasters will not be happy. There are repercussions for the Glazers. Stop watching games. Don't purchase official merchandise. Harrass and boycott sponsors. Keep momentum going outside the stadium so our aims stay in the media spotlight. All of the above are forms of protest, and all play a crucial part to varying degrees.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
9,137
Stop. Watching. The. Games.

Once you understand that the fans are the product that is being sold to advertisers and business as (viewers) you'll get why these protests do absolutely feck all. If the viewership to each United game takes a 30% hit, how can they sell commercial deals for the same value? They can't. How can they justify an increase TV money? They can't. It damages the product. Instead it is just an excuse for people to act in a yobbish manner while justifying it in the name of a "cause". Best swing by the off license to get a four pack of Stella en route to a protest.

I stand by this, the absolute worst thing about football is, by far, the fans.
Why don't you lead the way and stop watching it?
 

Murder on Zidane's Floor

You'd better not kill Giroud
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
10,378
But yesterday's protest did damage the viewership. The biggest game in English football was cancelled. Commercial partners will not be happy. Broadcasters will not be happy. There are repercussions for the Glazers. Stop watching games. Don't purchase official merchandise. Harrass and boycott sponsors. Keep momentum going outside the stadium so our aims stay in the media spotlight. All of the above are forms of protest, and all play a crucial part to varying degrees.
So you're going to protest every game to get it postponed? Meaning you affect other teams fans with owners they might be content with?

Great plan.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
2,106
That's terrible if true. The FA has to be more considerate than that. But we know they will f*** us over.
Unfortunately, those yellow and green (assuming they organised this) would rather harm our staff and players, and perhaps even gift 3 points to Liverpool. When they made the claim to oust the Glazers, show us the money, Find 4B and they are happy to sell.
 

M15 Red.

Full Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
498
So you're going to protest every game to get it postponed? Meaning you affect other teams fans with owners they might be content with?

Great plan.
You invented your own plan, then sarcastically dismissed it. No one is saying that every game has to be postponed. Yesterday's game did, though. And we will continue to pick our battles. You should show some support.
 

RedPhil1957

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,595
Location
lincs.
Please stop the nonsense of it being our ( the supporters") club. As far as i know In the history of Manchester United the general supporters have never owned the club. The peddled idea from idiots on TV and Radio that supporters are the most important part of any football club is plain rubbish.
All those connected with club owners, staff, players and the fans are equally important. I started supporting United because of the Babes in 1957, I became hooked for life watching Charlton, Law then Best in 60's so players and to a lesser extent Sir Matt sucked me in to love the club, it was not fellow supporters!. It was the entity as a whole that kept me supporting during the years that our biggest rival won everything, I went to OT regularly for many years, lots of travel time, watching not particularly successful sides but always a magic about the club and always an unpredictability that excited. The ownership of the club never entered my head all this time in fact not until we became a PLC when my limited knowledge knew we were vulnerable to market trends. That was the time us supporters could/should have taken a large stake in club but we didn't. Then along came the Glazers I like many others abought a few shares, then joined MUST all to little to late.
We have had a number of owners since United was born, the Glazers just the latest. Are they the worst? to be honest I don't know, they are certainly the most disliked in my lifetime. I would like them gone but not to the extent of dragging the club through the gutter to get rid. Love the protest but hate the 'rent a mob' that always accompanies such action and for me badly hurting the club to get rid of owners is just not worth it. Those cries of happily see the club relegated or play in non league to get rid seem stupid to me ( I thought FC Manchester came into being for them). Do you really want to see the club fall like that just to get rid of bad owners hoping desperately a supporters trust with a few benevolent cash investors take over. Because it is far more likely the club would be sold with the worry we could be jumping out of frying pan into the fire and get worse owners and the cycle starts again. Our best hope is Government and PL coming together to enforce some supporter involvement in every club.