red thru&thru
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 7,657
And us as fans have to do something about it. Of course they won't care, we have to make them care!Of course the context is spot on.
But they don't care
And us as fans have to do something about it. Of course they won't care, we have to make them care!Of course the context is spot on.
But they don't care
That’s a fair point, another season like last is a horrible thought. In an ideal world ole will be a success and we as fans can find a way to hit the glazers where it hurts, boycotting games whist the team is performing is never going to happen. A shame really that the only way we will ever get to that stage is if the team are massively under performing and putting ole in the firing line.Agree that hashtags alone won't make it alone, however, the slide in performances is making the wider audience more and more apparent at how poorly the club is being run. They shot themselves in the foot by appointing Ole. Personally, I wanted another manager, but if by appointing Ole they don't achieve results, the tide will not turn on Ole but on Ed and the Glazer's.
Fans will stop coming to games. It began to happen last year under Jose.
Silly open letters on Twitter wont make them care.And us as fans have to do something about it. Of course they won't care, we have to make them care!
Agree with all your posts.Silly open letters on Twitter wont make them care.
Hurting revenue streams will.
Empty stadiums will.
Effecting sponsors reputations will.
It'll have to be done in a highly organised and systematic way and I've no idea how.
A few Twitter trends won't matter the feck.
Negaitve Stock exchange effect is all the Glazers will care about
Lots of small impacts could eventually gather momentum.Silly open letters on Twitter wont make them care.
Hurting revenue streams will.
Empty stadiums will.
Effecting sponsors reputations will.
It'll have to be done in a highly organised and systematic way and I've no idea how.
A few Twitter trends won't matter the feck.
Negaitve Stock exchange effect is all the Glazers will care about
Paddy Crerand show has been pulled from the schedule.Lots of small impacts could eventually gather momentum.
It's just a stupid letter on twitter but newspapers caught up to it, might even make a few more fans open their eyes. Will it change anything? Nah, but hopefully the letter combined with other factors will cause a few discussions on more well established platforms. Has to start somewhere I guess.Silly open letters on Twitter wont make them care.
Hurting revenue streams will.
Empty stadiums will.
Effecting sponsors reputations will.
It'll have to be done in a highly organised and systematic way and I've no idea how.
A few Twitter trends won't matter the feck.
Negaitve Stock exchange effect is all the Glazers will care about
does anyone know where has this letter originated from?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I was disgusted with Paddy's comments. Defending the Glazers by saying every club is in debt. Not every club has been drained of a billion quid by their leeching owners.MUTV are pathetic acting ignorant to this open letter and cutting off callers.
That United died the day the Glazers took over.
Its a business now and purely that. You may as well accept it.
Saudi owners would prob invest more
So everyone stop buying merchandise for a start.And us as fans have to do something about it. Of course they won't care, we have to make them care!
YepSo everyone stop buying merchandise for a start.
amenWhen I look at the other forum threads, I feel complete apathy towards them. I don't care about who we're supposed to be signing or what our strongest XI is. This thread is THE major issue for me. Some ridicule the Twitter campaign and I don't understand why. Even if you don't think it will do anything, why bag it off? At the very least it's raising the profile of how shoddily the Glazers are running the club with some national newspapers dedicating column inches to the recent open letter.
Is there seriously a Utd fan out there that wants to keep the Glazers? We all need to do our bit, even if you think it's insignificant. For the first time in my life I will not be buying the new home shirt, or any official merchandise for that matter. They will not get a single penny more from me until the club is sold. If we all did that, they wouldn't make any money and would soon feck off. I've unfollowed all their social media, deleted the club app and never had MUTV to begin with but would be binning it off if I did.
We should all do our bit. Whether you are match-going, arm chair-sitting, British or from overseas. We cannot allow the current anti-Glazer sentiment to wither and die, as it did in 2005 and 2010. The noise needs to get louder and louder until it becomes unbearable for the leeching, gargoyle ginger cnuts.
It is factually incorrect, has fear mongering, for most part is stupid, and it generally has no purpose. If it was not written from a teenager, then Lord save us all.What about the context of the letter, agree with that? If not, how would you say it's an inaccurate?
Empty stadiums won't make much difference. Most of the money doesn't come from stadiums anyway. As long as we get sponsors on the other side of the world, it is fine.Silly open letters on Twitter wont make them care.
Hurting revenue streams will.
Empty stadiums will.
Effecting sponsors reputations will.
It'll have to be done in a highly organised and systematic way and I've no idea how.
A few Twitter trends won't matter the feck.
Negaitve Stock exchange effect is all the Glazers will care about
Because then they'd have a couple of guys phoning in from the room next to where they sit in the studio pretending to be fans, just like 99% of those shows work? Don't think anybody serious cares about MUTV anyway.Why doesn't the fanbase start by boycotting phoning MUTV altogether? Would be a terrible look for the sponsors, a silent room with Crerand etc not receiving any fañ calls whatsoever!
Good shout!Why doesn't the fanbase start by boycotting phoning MUTV altogether? Would be a terrible look for the sponsors, a silent room with Crerand etc not receiving any fañ calls whatsoever!
Empty stadiums will make a difference as the PL will stop televising our games and sponsors would not want the bad publicity. It also means the matchgoing fans protesting, not just to stop buying tickets.Empty stadiums won't make much difference. Most of the money doesn't come from stadiums anyway. As long as we get sponsors on the other side of the world, it is fine.
Also, empty stadium simply won't happen. Many tourists who like to watch the occasional match.
An empty stadium would send a message - repeated empty stadium would send a serious message - especially to sponsorsEmpty stadiums won't make much difference. Most of the money doesn't come from stadiums anyway. As long as we get sponsors on the other side of the world, it is fine.
Also, empty stadium simply won't happen. Many tourists who like to watch the occasional match.
You see the problem is you still think its a club. Its not a club. Its a business. Football is the product - poor as it is.When I look at the other forum threads, I feel complete apathy towards them. I don't care about who we're supposed to be signing or what our strongest XI is. This thread is THE major issue for me. Some ridicule the Twitter campaign and I don't understand why. Even if you don't think it will do anything, why bag it off? At the very least it's raising the profile of how shoddily the Glazers are running the club with some national newspapers dedicating column inches to the recent open letter.
Is there seriously a Utd fan out there that wants to keep the Glazers? We all need to do our bit, even if you think it's insignificant. For the first time in my life I will not be buying the new home shirt, or any official merchandise for that matter. They will not get a single penny more from me until the club is sold. If we all did that, they wouldn't make any money and would soon feck off. I've unfollowed all their social media, deleted the club app and never had MUTV to begin with but would be binning it off if I did.
We should all do our bit. Whether you are match-going, arm chair-sitting, British or from overseas. We cannot allow the current anti-Glazer sentiment to wither and die, as it did in 2005 and 2010. The noise needs to get louder and louder until it becomes unbearable for the leeching, gargoyle ginger cnuts.
PL still televises most of the matches which happen in Emptyhad, so I still think that they'll show United matches, especially considering that United's popularity still dwarfs that of any other EPL club.Empty stadiums will make a difference as the PL will stop televising our games and sponsors would not want the bad publicity. It also means the matchgoing fans protesting, not just to stop buying tickets.
I know we joke about Emptyhad, but that's not the same as having a mass walkout and protests inside or outside the ground.PL still televises most of the matches which happen in Emptyhad, so I still think that they'll show United matches, especially considering that United's popularity still dwarfs that of any other EPL club.
That was not money invested in the club, and most of it came from a debt which then they'll put in the club. There have been many lies put from MUST and co. making Glazers being Satan MK2, but it is an undeniable truth that they didn't put any money in the club.The 750m buyout in the first place. Guess where the money ended up?
Say something repeatedly, and it becomes the truth. Debt is not harmful at all, it is negligible (20m interest payments for year, which is less than Sanchez's salary), and most (if not all) of that money would have gone in taxes *. There is a good reason why every company has debt.amen
I cant understand the Glazer defenders either - from an objective point of view it is indefensible to saddle the club with that debt (tax or no tax) let alone the extremely poor running of the club
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Ah ok. Which parts are not factually correct?It is factually incorrect, has fear mongering, for most part is stupid, and it generally has no purpose. If it was not written from a teenager, then Lord save us all.
Also surely matchday tickets generate millions every week?!Empty stadiums will make a difference as the PL will stop televising our games and sponsors would not want the bad publicity. It also means the matchgoing fans protesting, not just to stop buying tickets.
What I mean is, the 750 debt the glazer took, where do they pay that to?That was not money invested in the club, and most of it came from a debt which then they'll put in the club. There have been many lies put from MUST and co. making Glazers being Satan MK2, but it is an undeniable truth that they didn't put any money in the club.
Unless you count the money they've put to reduce the debt, but then, the debt in the first place was because of them buying the club.
1b thing for a start.Ah ok. Which parts are not factually correct?
1b? Please elaborate...1b thing for a start.
But that is not investing in the club though, that is buying the club. When people say invest (though it is used sporadically to mean different things), they typically mean 'use the money to buy players, increase salaries, reduce ticket prices, improve the stadium, do sponsor deals' and these type of things instead of 'billionaire A gives money to billionaire B in order to own the club'.What I mean is, the 750 debt the glazer took, where do they pay that to?
(hint : previous share owner)
if you bought a business for 10M, manage it to grow to 100M. Do you inject 100M? or 10M?
In order to reach 1b (dollar), you need to add some of the Glazers money (which they got via selling their A shares to other people) which they used to reduce/restructure the debt. From MUST this is somehow seen as a negative (cause why not, let's go with the agenda), but in fact it was a positive. They sold some of their shares (and now own less than the entire club) and used that money to repay the debt. However, it is portrayed like 'yet another sum of money they drained from the club'.1b? Please elaborate...
Show me which club that uses the owners money to purchase players? Which owner took lost and inject capital to reduce ticket prices? Which businessman inject their own money in a healthy business?But that is not investing in the club though, that is buying the club. When people say invest (though it is used sporadically to mean different things), they typically mean 'use the money to buy players, increase salaries, reduce ticket prices, improve the stadium, do sponsor deals' and these type of things instead of 'billionaire A gives money to billionaire B in order to own the club'.
So yeah, it is fair to say that Glazers didn't put their own money in the club (bar for buying the club).
Well, most of sugar daddies do that. City and PSG arguably still do it (and they did for a few years, in some cases with insane amount of money), Chelsea did it for a decade, Italian clubs did it in the entire nineties. So yes, it happens, just that it is quite rare to happen, and in our case, totally unexpected cause them got the club to earn money, not to lose.Show me which club that uses the owners money to purchase players? Which owner took lost and inject capital to reduce ticket prices? Which businessman inject their own money in a healthy business?
You lot are looking for a fairy godmother, not another owner
it's the principal really of buying a largely debt free club, the club paying for itself in effect as it was saddled with the debt and it remains in a debt that would have to be taken on by any new owner....you used the term morality and I would agree with thatSay something repeatedly, and it becomes the truth. Debt is not harmful at all, it is negligible (20m interest payments for year, which is less than Sanchez's salary), and most (if not all) of that money would have gone in taxes *. There is a good reason why every company has debt.
Of course, it was totally different in 2005-2010 when we were paying 60-70m per year, while having less than half of our current revenue.
The fact that people still talk about the debt as it was the reason (or even a reason) for us not doing that well shows how good MUST were at their brainwashing propaganda. There are many more reasons to dislike/hate Glazers and to want them out (though, careful what you wish for, if they're out it is either another leveraged buyout which would put 2b+ in debt, or becoming the propaganda tool of Saudi Arabia), but the debt (at least since it was reconstructed) is not one of those reasons.
* We were paying 7m/year in taxes under PLC, and since then the revenue and profit have been increased 5 times or so, which might mean that taxes would have increased quite significantly. However, between their takeover and 2012, United paid 4.1m taxes in total. I don't know how much we recently pay in taxes, but it is likely, that we are paying less (or even) in interest payments and taxes, rather than what we would have paid in taxes alone if United was debt-free. Of course, the morality of 'avoiding - though totally legally - paying taxes' can be discussed to death.