Both absolutely correct.
Matches must be protested. With protests outside the ground on match days.
#GlazersOut
- Thread starter Marcelinho87
- Start date
Matches must be protested. With protests outside the ground on match days.
I also hope we start protesting the brands associated with the club. Proper protests outside their corporate headquarters. Social media campaigns in which key individuals within the companies are the focus. United has hundreds of millions of fans worldwide. We can organize a movement that hasn't been seen in sport if we do it properly. And this type of reaction is justified given what the Glazers have done to United is unprecedented in sporting history.
Anybody turning up that Saturday then? I'll be there... If anybody fancies a pint or 2 before hand gimme a shout.
This type of thing - done respectfully, and legally, should be sticky posted at the top of every Utd forum and reddit.
It should basically be a constant - the journos would pick up on it quickly and have a field day.
Is it though? I mean with twitter unless you are looking for a specific phrase you might not see the activity and its probably some intern running the page. Ultimately Aon getting spammed on twitter is unlikely to result in them putting pressure on the Glazers to invest.
I think the protest at the grounds is interesting if it gains traction as its visible and impossible to ignore.
Social media is incredibly important to these companies, and indeed the Glazers themselves, as it holds the potential to damage their already incredibly fragile public image and thus their future greed ventures...
I honestly think the Glazers could be ousted by a prolonged social media campaign, if it was popular enough - which it easily could be.
Social media is basically the fans most powerful (and readily available) weapon against them.
Come on! Lets at least try to kick those a**h***s out! Otherwise, they are just going to destroy our club! Matches must be protested. With protests outside the ground on every match days.
#LUHG
#LUHG
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. It's almost laughable how often Woodward quotes social media stats in his shareholders meetings. It means so much to them that United has a positive brand online. They understand the value in the digital marketplace. And if we can start a movement against them across social media, we can make a significant difference. Look at this way - these are people are actively working against United's best interests. I hate to use the phrase Good Versus Evil. But that's what we're dealing with here.
I think so. If all of Chevrolet's adverts have 5 likes, 3 retweets and 100 #GlazersOut comments then I think it'll go beyond the intern. I'm not saying Avram's phone is going to start going off but sponsors would be likely to ask questions. Will they demand United get Pogba and Ndombele in for a double pivot? No. Will they suggest that maybe they're unhappy and unsatisfied with their relationship with United after spending millions per year and getting negative publicity in return? There's a good chance.
A protest outside of the stadium with a lot of coverage will hopefully be effective too. It's worth trying literally anything.
To be honest, this protest should have happened on one of the many match days where fans either don't turn up or do a collective walk out during the game. This would have been perfect during one of the last few matches, and there was strong talk of it but nothing came out of it.
Hopefully this gathers enough momentum to go into the new season.
The best time to do it was during games, when you have cameras screening it worldwide. That's how you hit them hard. A protest happens tomorrow, a few local news agencies pick up on it, then what? It's only in the England and Ireland where the Glazers are hit. The rest of the world don't see it.
Spot on, mate!!! It's the same people who get annoyed at fans being vocal near them at games. Keano hit the nail on the head with the term Prawn Sandwich Brigade.
Glazers will go if the share price starts dropping.
do any of the people advocating boycotting matches actually go to any matches?
its been proven in the past that boycotts dont work - i doubt it will be any different this time either
its been proven in the past that boycotts dont work - i doubt it will be any different this time either
Beginning to realise now that all the talk before the summer of rebuilding and overhaul are just bluster and bluffs.
We are going nowhere fast. We look more likely to be losing our best players than getting anyone in who can step up and be proper United players for the next 4-5 years.
We are going nowhere fast. We look more likely to be losing our best players than getting anyone in who can step up and be proper United players for the next 4-5 years.
100% agreed
How has it been proven? Do you mean that people just won't do it or are you implying that if Old Trafford is consistently half empty for a period of time, there won't be any reaction from either the sponsors, shareholders, stakeholders or the TV companies that broadcast the Premier League?
I don't understand why there is such a staunch opposition to taking action. It's blatantly obvious we have no proper footballing structure at the club, the people in charge have no idea how to plan properly for the future. Just look at how much our facilities are stagnating - we used to have the most modern training grounds and different types of departments required. For what I've seen from photos and videos, added to what people have been saying for a few years, Old Trafford is getting old as well and doesn't really match up to the modern standards of a top club.
All this goes to show that we are not only falling behind in pure football terms, but out base and roots of the club are no more up to the required standards and it will only get worse in the future by the looks of it.
I've washed my Yellow & Green scarf
I am not sure why we are complaining about Glazers.
In last 5 years our net spend is 550£ millions just few millions less than city and we were the second biggest spenders. If our managers made wrong decisions in the transfer market why we blame the owners? I never heard they are forcing any players on managers or bring in any -ve publicity to the club. They seem to be very quite bunch of brothers. We were very unfortunate that we picked LVG, Jose who past it.
If they spend very less or dont back the transfers I understand but its not the case so why all this hate?
In last 5 years our net spend is 550£ millions just few millions less than city and we were the second biggest spenders. If our managers made wrong decisions in the transfer market why we blame the owners? I never heard they are forcing any players on managers or bring in any -ve publicity to the club. They seem to be very quite bunch of brothers. We were very unfortunate that we picked LVG, Jose who past it.
If they spend very less or dont back the transfers I understand but its not the case so why all this hate?
We have spent our own money which the club generated, the Glazers have spent feck all.
Infact the glazers have taken out over £1bn....
True, I totally agree that Its our money we spent but imagine if we get far greedy owners than Glazers we couldn't probably spend that 550£ millions either. So dont wish for something unknown which can get far worse. Business men dont think like fans you know but atleast they spent 550£ millions in last 5 years which is not that bad overall. I would like to continue this conversation but I reach my daily quota. Hope you see my point and worry about bringing in right structure at club than replacing owners. They are neither saints nor sinners, Just pure businessmen.
Have United fans in various countries protest at the same time. Let it be a world wide movement
I mean that people wont do it
I dont think there is much staunch opposition to taking action, but we have been here before and Id say the original LUHG campaign and Green&Gold were a lot stronger movements than this new one and yet they are still here - in fact they are in a much stronger position now than they were back then.
Ffs, some posters on here implying that we could have got worse owners than the Glazers. Of course we could, but there are not many worse around. Putting the most profitable club in the world in a huge debt, still carry this debt on after a dozens of years, start lagging behind in all aspects of the game. Screw them, the fecking leaches. Still enjoying the legacy that SAF built while running the whole club into the ground. Hope they feck off. Seventy five thousand fans all chanting "Love United, Hate Glazers" immediately before kick off, at half time and after the final whistle will not go unnoticed.
Serious question here.
Without the debt, how much more corporate tax would we have paid since the takeover? Anyone?
Mine hasn't left the back of my car, it's been hanging there since the original protest.
Might have to buy a new one to wear however...
without the debt how much better off would the club be as a whole? No debt payments means a lot more money to spend elsewhere, infrastructure, playing staff, scouts etc
If you search for #glazerout on Twitter then you see a new tweet every 20 seconds or so. Is this sufficient? How much do we actually need for the board to take notice?
Inside old trafford should be empty, while outside protesters shout 'glazers out', on matchdays, now that would send a clear and loud message.
Still have mine..
That wasn’t my question @Champ.
How much more tax would the club have paid without the debt since the takeover? I’m genuinely interested and think it’s probably an important question. Lots of successful businesses purposely take on debt to avoid paying tax.
We would have paid more tax without the debt but it's irrelevant as we could have invested it on players instead and paid the same tax still.
It’s not irrelevant as there’s only so much you can spend. We’ve clearly invested shit loads in players as it is, both in fees and wages.
The plc would have also been taking out massive dividends these days. We fecked up as a fan base not trying to buy the club a long long time ago. The idea that the plc would have been piling most of the profits into the club feels like fantasy stuff.
Not saying the debt is a good thing, just saying that many companies purposely take on debt.
They do but usually with the intention of investing and maximising profits. We're a football club, we should be maximising performance on the pitch as our main target, not profit.
As well as spending it badly we still haven't spent enough to replace the quality of team we had 10 years ago, we could have spent more without the debt.
Agreed. But ”could” and ”would” are two different things sadly.
As I say, the plc would have also been taking out massive dividends these days.
We fuxked up, should have been a fan owned club ages back
Whether the board takes notice or not is irrelevant. It's not like the Glazers are gonna do anything anyway. What's important is rich people outside the club to take notice, but the chance of that is very low either way.
There are a whole host of reasons the Glazers have been poor owners.
Yes they have spent a lot of money on transfers but the wrong ones. I appreciate hindsight is a wonderful thing but with the correct procedures in place we could have had a better shot at playing with a specific style in mind and gone out and bought players that fit this system. Unfortunately our system changed with each coming manager, there was no-one central like a DOF that could guide the club through these new appointments.
The place where we succeed are commercial deals, which I would be fine with if the vast majority of the money was pumped back into the club. If the Glazers weren't taking such sizeable sums out of the club we could have an unrivalled transfer kitty. We could also expand and update Old Trafford - once the jewel in our crown, now getting to be a bit embarrassing. We sold out season tickets in record time with, if you believe, a 100,000 long waiting list. Why not use a chunk of the £1bn they've taken out to improve the stadium and Mirror the SAF stand. The train line is an issue but it's not unachievable. It would cost more but spend the money! Let's have 100,000 in Old Trafford, use safe standing and make tickets cheaper for locals to boost the atmosphere. This wouldn't make more money but it would be amazing for the club.
But then the Glazers aren't bothered about the club. They're bothered about the bottom line. It's ran as a business, not like a club at all even the ones suffering will still be going to OT long after the Glazers are dead.
Yes they have spent a lot of money on transfers but the wrong ones. I appreciate hindsight is a wonderful thing but with the correct procedures in place we could have had a better shot at playing with a specific style in mind and gone out and bought players that fit this system. Unfortunately our system changed with each coming manager, there was no-one central like a DOF that could guide the club through these new appointments.
The place where we succeed are commercial deals, which I would be fine with if the vast majority of the money was pumped back into the club. If the Glazers weren't taking such sizeable sums out of the club we could have an unrivalled transfer kitty. We could also expand and update Old Trafford - once the jewel in our crown, now getting to be a bit embarrassing. We sold out season tickets in record time with, if you believe, a 100,000 long waiting list. Why not use a chunk of the £1bn they've taken out to improve the stadium and Mirror the SAF stand. The train line is an issue but it's not unachievable. It would cost more but spend the money! Let's have 100,000 in Old Trafford, use safe standing and make tickets cheaper for locals to boost the atmosphere. This wouldn't make more money but it would be amazing for the club.
But then the Glazers aren't bothered about the club. They're bothered about the bottom line. It's ran as a business, not like a club at all even the ones suffering will still be going to OT long after the Glazers are dead.
Indeed they do, and I know that's the reason why it's still hanging around, also the club itself is based in the Cayman Islands so read into that what you will!
The club itself doesn't scrimp on tax payments however, having paid a hefty whack, without digging out my PDF copy of our accounts I can't remember the amount but it's a lot.
But my question was to counteract that argument, no debt no overheads in that department.
I do wonder what the answer is here, not just for ourselves but also the Spurs/Arsenals/Liverpools of the world. The key question is this: what is the right thing for a football club to 'solve' for? Is it some kind of discounted cash flow? Trophies in the next x years? Because those two things would push towards different actions.
If you look purely at optimising profit, I'd strongly wager the best path is to spend the minimum to guarantee a Champions League spot. Once you're in that position, incrementally spending to get 1,2,3 probably doesn't stack up against the required amounts. And that would be in a 'normal' sports league.
But we don't exist in one of those. At the top of the pedestal - for the forseeable future - is a club that has no need to optimise at all. It's like clubs 2-5 are all trying to win a race by trade-offs between handling, engine, weight etc, and the top club uses a car from a different class. The reason that is important is because it leads to the question: why on Earth would Ed spend, say, $75m on a player he believes could move us from 3rd to 2nd. Or 4th to 2nd, whatever. We will not generate $75m incremental revenue from that player, so it, in terms of a business, be a bad decision. And worse, what if Ed does sanction all that spend in an effort to finally get to 1st, and then City just go and replace all of their full backs, for example. Or buy 3 new strikers with the hope that one will be able to replace Aguero. It's financial suicide to compete.
Again, purely from a business standpoint. But it's crucial to acknowledge that is Ed's job. It isn't to win us trophies, unfortunately. It isn't to get us to the top of the league, or back into the footballing elite.
We (cough, Fergie, cough) allowed this to happen. But getting angry at Ed and the owners for not behaving as if footballing success is all that matters is just a waste of energy. Ed should be spending exactly as little as possible as to ensure we're in the CL next year. And not a penny more. So should Levy and the other CEOs. It sucks, but that's what football is these days.
If you look purely at optimising profit, I'd strongly wager the best path is to spend the minimum to guarantee a Champions League spot. Once you're in that position, incrementally spending to get 1,2,3 probably doesn't stack up against the required amounts. And that would be in a 'normal' sports league.
But we don't exist in one of those. At the top of the pedestal - for the forseeable future - is a club that has no need to optimise at all. It's like clubs 2-5 are all trying to win a race by trade-offs between handling, engine, weight etc, and the top club uses a car from a different class. The reason that is important is because it leads to the question: why on Earth would Ed spend, say, $75m on a player he believes could move us from 3rd to 2nd. Or 4th to 2nd, whatever. We will not generate $75m incremental revenue from that player, so it, in terms of a business, be a bad decision. And worse, what if Ed does sanction all that spend in an effort to finally get to 1st, and then City just go and replace all of their full backs, for example. Or buy 3 new strikers with the hope that one will be able to replace Aguero. It's financial suicide to compete.
Again, purely from a business standpoint. But it's crucial to acknowledge that is Ed's job. It isn't to win us trophies, unfortunately. It isn't to get us to the top of the league, or back into the footballing elite.
We (cough, Fergie, cough) allowed this to happen. But getting angry at Ed and the owners for not behaving as if footballing success is all that matters is just a waste of energy. Ed should be spending exactly as little as possible as to ensure we're in the CL next year. And not a penny more. So should Levy and the other CEOs. It sucks, but that's what football is these days.