And us as fans have to do something about it. Of course they won't care, we have to make them care!
#GlazersOut
- Thread starter Marcelinho87
- Start date
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.
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
Agree with all your posts.
However, the letter is just part of the bigger plan. We all know the Glazer's and aren't going to read it but it's just another way of bringing attention to the bigger picture.
Proper North Korea down at MUTV.
Lots of small impacts could eventually gather momentum.
Paddy Crerand show has been pulled from the schedule.
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.
does anyone know where has this letter originated from?
Its actually quite well written and avoids most of the hyperbole that turns some people away from this campaign, does well to focus on what I feel are the more important issues (DoF and Woodward failings) rather than just transfer muppet moaning.
I think this could get more traction from the matchgoing fanbase than the previous social media campaign
As for the 5 questions - 4 are pretty easy to answer:
1. The Glazers have no plans to clear the debt - probably helps them to avoid taxes.
2. Woodward's payrise has been given on the basis of increasing revenues and profits - from a footballing point of view he's clearly been a failure though #WoodwardOut
3. The annual interest bill has already reduced significantly over time.
It was on the high side when the Glazers first turned up and got worse around the time of the financial crisis, now its dropped a lot to something like £20m per year which is relatively small in relation to our turnover. Obviously it would be better if there was no debt and no interest payments but the debt is here to stay
4. The vast majority of the proceeds from the 2012 floation has gone straight to the Glazers - IIRC some of the cash was used to reduce club debts but the majority is simply profit for the Glazer family. In fact I am surprised that they havent sold more shares since the value of the club has increased significantly since 2005 - perhaps they arent confident in achieving their own valuation.
I dont have the answer to the last question about DoF but for me personally this is the most important questions and my main gripe with the Glazers. I think we are desperate for a restructuring on the football side of the club, some changes are being implemented (Butt promoted etc) but I did hope to have a DoF in place before the start of the season and doesnt look like that is going to happen.
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.
Invest more????
If the Saudis put just £1 in to the club they would have invested more than the glazers.
The 750m buyout in the first place. Guess where the money ended up?
So everyone stop buying merchandise for a start.
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.
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.
Yep
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Good shout!
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.
An empty stadium would send a message - repeated empty stadium would send a serious message - especially to sponsors
But I agree - it will simply never happen
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.
The only thing that matters around sentiment - is the sentiment of the board of directors, and I would guess that they are quite happy. Money is rolling in, and while it rolls in little pockets of disquiet are par for the course with corporate behemoths.
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.
I know we joke about Emptyhad, but that's not the same as having a mass walkout and protests inside or outside the ground.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
You've got pricks like this Phil Brown guy telling other fans to boycott everything United when he's wearing a fecking United shirt in his profile picture.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
Ah ok. Which parts are not factually correct?
Also surely matchday tickets generate millions every week?!
My main concern are dividend payouts.
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?
1b thing for a start.
1b? Please elaborate...
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).
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'.
It also doesn't use any context, like if that money wouldn't have been spent on the debt and interest, some part of it would have been spent on taxes. I briefly touched that topic just a few posts ahead.
Finally, it doesn't measure their (undeniable) contribution in the financial growth of the club. Just check the sheets, out commercial income had stagnated before them, and our advertisement department has 2 employees. Now, it is on the hundreds. Obviously, some other owner might have done the same, but it is unlikely that the previous owners would have managed to do this, considering that a) they were clueless; b) they were clueless; c) they were clueless and d) their strategy was Nike + vodafone and nothing else.
Don't get me wrong, all things considered, there was a gigantic amount of money that was drained from the club. Just that it wasn't 1b; some of that money would have been paid in taxes instead of interest payment; Glazers contributed in growing (financially) the club. Now, it is hard to guesstimate how much money was spent because of Glazers (as in remove interest, debt and divident payment, add taxes) but for sure it has to be in the hundreds of millions. Just that nowhere close to a billion. And the equation becomes impossible, if you also add into account Glazers contribution to the growth of the club and that the PLC also got dividents.
I'll say what I have always said that Glazers are better than PLC, and that since the debt was restructured, financial wise they have done a superb job (I think only City and Barca have outspent us since SAF left in transfers, and only Barca in salaries). At the same time, they were bad in the first 5 years (where we were paying 62m in interest payments, while having less than 300m revenue). The main problem I have with them is that they seem to be clueless on running the club (which is done via their employees like Woodward), and as a result, despite that we are spending on pair with the richest clubs (right there with City, Barca and PSG, more than Madrid, Juve and Liverpool), we are not even a top 10 club in Europe. If the criticism starts getting addressed there instead of on myths (or in the past), then I am all in.
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
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.
Of course, it can be arguably done and still earn money, like put some of your money in the club, club does better and stock price increases, then sell the stocks for a lot of money (which is more than what club cost and the money invested there). Again, very unlikely to ever happen for such a massive club as United. But if Arabs decide to sell City, they will actually earn money, despite that so far they have spent more than 1 billion of their own money there.
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 that
it's too simplistic of course to focus on debt as there are many other facets as highlighted by those 5 key questions. Debt could be forgiven somewhat as an unethical economic decision if the club was run properly elsewhere.