Guardian: Manchester United lose £200m training kit deal over fans’ anti-Glazers campaign

Mindhunter

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,322
Odds are that barring a few extremist purists, virtually no one wants that. More importantly, no one thinks that. They're thinking quite the opposite, in fact. TL;DR at the end.

The vast majority of the 'people thinking this is good' are approaching this akin to chemotherapy.

They're 'calculating' - to varying degrees of ability, of course - that the Glazers are among the two or three very worst possible owners in existence, hence the odds are pretty good we'll be able to attract better owners, and with a lot of effort and dialogue and external help such as government intervention, maybe even good or great owners who really know what they're doing, will implement a plan to substantially decrease the debt over two or even one-ish sponsorship cycle and get to where every financial-minded poster is pointing out: this club can compete with the petro-clubs without substantial owner investment.

Almost more importantly than that, they're also calculating that the show of force will discourage, or pre-emptively 'filter out' any Glazer-type prospective owners via various means that most fans won't even know about let alone consider. People in the 0.01% world aren't all chums and pals generally united in the common pursuit of exploiting those below. They have allies and enemies and agendas far away from football but that can be 'thrown into the package' so to speak during any machinations. Fan movements like this can aid like-minded prospective owners and hinder Glazer-types via political - and in this case potentially quite literally political - maneuverings. Fan protests and action like this can help a 'good/great' buyer manipulate themselves into the picture.

The people 'thinking this is good' are thinking (in broad strokes):

A. if you buy the club and do things right, you'll have this kind of fan support at your back (AKA once the dust settles, you'll be picking up the club 'on a song' but you-and-I-and-banks-and-sponsors all know that that any 'depreciated' numbers aren't the real numbers, they're the numbers generated while the fanbase drove out the Glazers using 'chemotherapy'
B. if you're someone like the Glazers, kindly on't even bother applying for the job.
C. if you're someone of means, you know how to calculate and utilize these things; we'll try and keep doing our part until someone like you can finally take action

Among the fanbase, there are certain more knowledgeable people thinking very very strategic and tactical things in the midst of all this. But the above A through C is the core of it.

TL;DR Everyone very much realizes there can be short-term pain. These people are banking on able buyers recognizing and utilizing that leverage. On average, it's actually the 'don't you realize you're hurting the club derp derp' people who don't realize they aren't seeing nearly as far as the vast majority of protesters.

Like the below:
Thanks for responding sensibly to a concern that some fans have instead of posting jingoistic nonsense like the others. I understand the point you are trying to make and agree that if we were to force them to leave then this is the only way.

My worry is that there isn't an owner out there who would put up 2-3 billion dollars of his own money to buy in and then work selflessly for the club instead of the club working for them. The only exceptions to this are the petro-states and the shady individuals who we want to steer clear of.

My worry is that upsetting the status quo can have severe unintended consequences like getting an owner like Kroenke who just doesn't care or even worse like MBS. The club would either languish in obscurity or be a prop in the hands of a despot.

We are far better off trying to force the Glazers on to the negotiating table and get concessions from them and a promise to improve OT, reduce debt, and invest in the squad. No body knows the endgame of a militant policy and who would replace the Glazers, how long it will take, and what will be the collateral damage while this plays out over the next 2-3 years.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
54,968
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Why are some people taking the ludicrous stance that this will make United a toxic brand for sponsors (or prospective buyers)?

The whole point is that it's the Glazers who are toxic. Companies looking at sponsoring us are not run by morons, they realise perfectly well that it's association with the Glazer family that could damage their brand, not association with Manchester United.
I rarely agree with your posts but this is one of those times.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,800
Location
manchester
Why are some people taking the ludicrous stance that this will make United a toxic brand for sponsors (or prospective buyers)?

The whole point is that it's the Glazers who are toxic. Companies looking at sponsoring us are not run by morons, they realise perfectly well that it's association with the Glazer family that could damage their brand, not association with Manchester United.
We were being warned one of the biggest sports brands on the planet wouldnt be able to attract a sponsor again :lol:
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
In an ideal world we’ll be owned by lifelong fan who manages the club responsibly. Outside of that I’d have issues with EVERY conceivable ownership structure and owner.

Am I willing to see clubs future jeopardised to achieve my ideal? No
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
898
Let's break your utter shambles of convo into parts and answer to them, okay, mate?

1. Who knows if it really is or isn't but the timing of it clearly suggests it is. Plus the sponsor sent info that it is clearly about fan protests.
2. Well duh, mate, this is the point. We want to make them sell our club. If they can't buy players then Man Utd will be left behind, we won't make it into CL, Glazers will lose even more money (whether directly or non-directly) Regarding this sponsor, the deal had been signed/or very close to replace AON on 1st of July 2021. If u want to write a half-baked long story then go to Man City forums. Very good if it has impact on transfer window, more fans would be upset about it and more protests.
3. What are u talking mate? 94% of our outgoings are club related? During the Glazer years United has generated 5,9B pounds revenue out of which 1,1 Billion has went to interest payments, SwillsRamble made great thread about it where they write that 1,8 Billion has went to Glazers out of the club, have you read it? maybe you should before u start writing nonsense here, 94% :D where did u even come up with that number???
4. Everything that you write is good, that is what we want to happen, to get Glazers to get lost. Again Less transfers - More people angry - more and angry protests
5. i would just say, short term pain for long term gain
Your whole post is so badly written, you have done 0 research and are just talking about things you dont know. I know that OT is leaking, Academy and training ground has seen less investment than Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Man City. out of 5,9 Billion revenue 30% has gone to Glazers. Do you understand?
Go and read, then maybe you can write educated posts
The financial figures are facts. By the way, I am a chartered accountant and stock trader. I analyse statements and reports all the time.

1. Where is this info? Newspapers make stuff up all the time, so it isn't exactly flawless proof. Edit: Just seen it. They were only in discussion, so it isn't much, to be honest. They were acting like it was close to signing.

2. As I said, it won't make them sell the club. Even if the value of the club dropped by $1bn, they would be in a situation where they would still be in a profitable position of $2.4bn on their initial investment. Hardly a pressurised position, is it? Why would they sell at a troubled time? The likelihood is this will all die down pretty quickly and the share price will gradually restore itself before real damage is done, so they would probably wait. In fact, if they were considering a sale already, this will probably only delay proceedings through limiting buyers and them waiting for the protests to pass.

3. This is drawn from the same financials that Swiss Ramble used. I split the times period down using his same figures. 94% of all expenditure is club related in the past eight years. Only 6% (interest and dividends) you can say is spent on the debt and Glazers. That SwissRamble is talking about a 15 year period, which is pretty useless, to be honest. Cut it down to eight year and you will see the real pattern of what is going on now. Ideally, you would spit it down more, but, in all likelihood, each year will now follow the split in the past eight year.

In fact, the change started under Ferguson, so the finances started veering towards the current position ten years ago.

4. It isn't good because, in all likelihood, if this went on for a long while, some of the damage will be permanent. What is the point of complaining about 6% of outgoings being spent on dividends and interest when you may lose equivalent or more revenue through this protesting and attacking sponsors? In the end, you may have even less to spend on the club after the Glazers are gone. Manutd could have real issues if it dropped more than 2% (dividends) as the rest is spent on either requirements or legally binding agreements.

You may think it is good, but remember that you would be risking losing some of our best players at this time. If it did too much damage, you could be saying goodbye to Fernandes, Rashford, Pogba (might have to remove the contract offer) etc. I wonder whether you would be so happy then?

5. You are underestimating business. Recovery is slower than damage.

I have posted the pie charts again.





You can argue against the numbers all you like, but what happened in the past is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a new owner, unless they are a sugar daddy, isn't going to make any difference to the financial situation we are in now. Nobody but a sugar daddy will pay off the debt. Why? Because it is actually a bad financial decision at this time. If it was paid off out the clubs money, it would take 25 years to recover that amount. So, it would be 2046 before the club actually started benefiting from paying it off.

Also, I am going to show the financials after Malcom Glazer died in 2015, so 2015 onwards. You will see the pie chart is almost identical to the Post-Ferguson one, showing that the pattern is continuing.

 
Last edited:

JustinC00

Full Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
1,573
To those who were saying it's BS

pulled out of discussions

That's a step-back from "the contracts were signed and it was a done deal" , they were likely 1 of several companies in talks and decided to get some free PR for this.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
If they were due to take over sponsorship in July I’m surprised that they were still at ‘discussion’ stage as of May.

There’s so much of that story that reeks of bull**** that people are in denial about because they like the story
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
I’m surprised the Cavani contract extension and Sancho rumours hasn’t been met with dismay and disappointment we’re not yet in position where we can’t afford to give players new contracts and can still apparently compete in the transfer market.

Is that not the aim?

So we want to starve the owner’s of funds so they sell but not the funds used for things like resigning players, buying new ones or possible investment in the stadium?

Which funds are we celebrating that we have and which funds do we not want us to have? I’ll have to write it down because I’m unclear.

Presumably any big signing like Sancho will be desperately disappointing and evidence we haven’t rated enough Adidas trainers as shit on Amazon #notapennymoreetc
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
12,227
If they were due to take over sponsorship in July I’m surprised that they were still at ‘discussion’ stage as of May.

There’s so much of that story that reeks of bull**** that people are in denial about because they like the story
agreed. As I mentioned previously, I don’t for a second believe they were signing a 10 year contract. So much BS here.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,657
Bless you been shown up and that’s all you’ve got. Here’s a tip when you come with one of these brilliant ideas check it actually supports what your arguing. Keep trying you’ll get there sooner or later.

And like I said look up what the stock exchange is.
Shown up? Now you're being stupid. It's called having a difference of opinion.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,657
We. Us lot. OUR gang. We are not a blouse. Not a hat. Not a cravat. But we...

...Are tragic. Boo-hoo sad and tearjerker tragic. The logic is remedial. Indeed it is. Especially when deployed of a Tuesday. Very remedial indeed.

Businesses go under. What an unpleasant prospect. I wonder how Legacy Fans of our club will like our NEW super duper plans, dreamt up on the back of a postage stamp. We don’t want to appear ungrateful. This time we will TELL the Legacy Fans. We can COMMUNICATE with them. After all, we have SO much in common...

It’s going really well, all this letter-writing. I’m gobsmacked we didn’t think of the Legacy Fans before. How do we start? Dear Drasdo/MUST person, would you mind if we did that dividend thing again at the weekend?

DEAR CAFE, we are remedial.. Double or single pivot?
Are you drunk?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,657
This is really what fans are expecting, a big giveaway by greedy owners.

I said they’ll list it which didn’t seem to mean anything to you (despite being a trader) as you think I was referring to a white knight that’s going to spend more than clubs worth and expect nothing back.
Why would they sell off their shares bit by bit when it would make them far more money to just sell in one lot?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,657
But almost every purchase of a football club is not with the intent for profit - hardly any make any profits, everyone knows this. There are a few exceptions like United, but it that doesn’t exactly help your point.

Rich people buy football clubs because they want a shiny toy, for the most part. Wouldn’t you agree?
But how many shiny toys have cost £4bn?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,657
Why are some people taking the ludicrous stance that this will make United a toxic brand for sponsors (or prospective buyers)?

The whole point is that it's the Glazers who are toxic. Companies looking at sponsoring us are not run by morons, they realise perfectly well that it's association with the Glazer family that could damage their brand, not association with Manchester United.
You could argue that the fans would be seen as being toxic to any potential sponsor or even new owner.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,657
The financial figures are facts. By the way, I am a chartered accountant and stock trader. I analyse statements and reports all the time.

1. Where is this info? Newspapers make stuff up all the time, so it isn't exactly flawless proof. Edit: Just seen it. They were only in discussion, so it isn't much, to be honest. They were acting like it was close to signing.

2. As I said, it won't make them sell the club. Even if the value of the club dropped by $1bn, they would be in a situation where they would still be in a profitable position of $2.4bn on their initial investment. Hardly a pressurised position, is it? Why would they sell at a troubled time? The likelihood is this will all die down pretty quickly and the share price will gradually restore itself before real damage is done, so they would probably wait. In fact, if they were considering a sale already, this will probably only delay proceedings through limiting buyers and them waiting for the protests to pass.

3. This is drawn from the same financials that Swiss Ramble used. I split the times period down using his same figures. 94% of all expenditure is club related in the past eight years. Only 6% (interest and dividends) you can say is spent on the debt and Glazers. That SwissRamble is talking about a 15 year period, which is pretty useless, to be honest. Cut it down to eight year and you will see the real pattern of what is going on now. Ideally, you would spit it down more, but, in all likelihood, each year will now follow the split in the past eight year.

In fact, the change started under Ferguson, so the finances started veering towards the current position ten years ago.

4. It isn't good because, in all likelihood, if this went on for a long while, some of the damage will be permanent. What is the point of complaining about 6% of outgoings being spent on dividends and interest when you may lose equivalent or more revenue through this protesting and attacking sponsors? In the end, you may have even less to spend on the club after the Glazers are gone. Manutd could have real issues if it dropped more than 2% (dividends) as the rest is spent on either requirements or legally binding agreements.

You may think it is good, but remember that you would be risking losing some of our best players at this time. If it did too much damage, you could be saying goodbye to Fernandes, Rashford, Pogba (might have to remove the contract offer) etc. I wonder whether you would be so happy then?

5. You are underestimating business. Recovery is slower than damage.

I have posted the pie charts again.





You can argue against the numbers all you like, but what happened in the past is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a new owner, unless they are a sugar daddy, isn't going to make any difference to the financial situation we are in now. Nobody but a sugar daddy will pay off the debt. Why? Because it is actually a bad financial decision at this time. If it was paid off out the clubs money, it would take 25 years to recover that amount. So, it would be 2046 before the club actually started benefiting from paying it off.

Also, I am going to show the financials after Malcom Glazer died in 2015, so 2015 onwards. You will see the pie chart is almost identical to the Post-Ferguson one, showing that the pattern is continuing.

Stop with the facts, they're not interested :lol:
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
17,974
Location
Sydney
I can’t stand this thread, too many bootlickers

Enjoy the Glazers, you deserve them
 

Number32

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
814
The financial figures are facts. By the way, I am a chartered accountant and stock trader. I analyse statements and reports all the time.

1. Where is this info? Newspapers make stuff up all the time, so it isn't exactly flawless proof. Edit: Just seen it. They were only in discussion, so it isn't much, to be honest. They were acting like it was close to signing.

2. As I said, it won't make them sell the club. Even if the value of the club dropped by $1bn, they would be in a situation where they would still be in a profitable position of $2.4bn on their initial investment. Hardly a pressurised position, is it? Why would they sell at a troubled time? The likelihood is this will all die down pretty quickly and the share price will gradually restore itself before real damage is done, so they would probably wait. In fact, if they were considering a sale already, this will probably only delay proceedings through limiting buyers and them waiting for the protests to pass.
Because there are 6 heads of them who already have their own interest outside football? I know Manchester United is their biggest family business, but only Joel and Avram who have serious attention to this, how about the other four? Would they consider to sell when another investment opportunity is coming to their door?

Our Chairman (Joel) only has 17% of voting power, they are not only smart businessmen/women, but also investors to another business, so everything is possible if they split up. Ed Woodward is the one who put the numbers of post Fergie that you have shown, without him I doubt another family member will trust Joel to run the club. In the past, Woodward was their main figure to take over the football club and made the business model for Malcolm. So the damage has already begun with his departure incoming, even without the protests.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
4,516
Why would they sell off their shares bit by bit when it would make them far more money to just sell in one lot?
If going to call me stupid at least post with some sign of intelligence or common sense yourself.

They’ve already sold some shares off and if they wanted too they could list all their remaining shares at same time so once again you’ve posted nonsense.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
I can’t stand this thread, too many bootlickers

Enjoy the Glazers, you deserve them
This has always been the problem.Resolve to oust them indestructible until it meets with others who disagree then somehow it falls apart.

Also you’re active in the Sancho thread. You think us buying players is good but us not having funds to do things such as buy players is also good?

For fifteen years the anti Glazer argument has been ill thought out, illogical and collapses under the slightest criticism then we wonder why they got away with allowing the stadium to rot.

I’m no fan of the Glazers or their under investment in the facilities or the fact we have to pay interest fees for the privilege of being owned by them, but Jesus Christ. Up against our best and brightest they certainly are not.
 

cantonaldo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
673
Location
hell
Hilarious that some fans here think that prolonged protests or boycotts will help the club.

Imagine being a prospective buyer or sponsor of the club. Imagine them having to deal with a constantly hostile fan base, much like Newcastle in the past. Would they jump in and suffer potential abuse or backlash from the fans?

Fans need to work with the owners, as much as how the fans want the owners to work with them. We cannot afford to let it spiral out of control.
 

Matriac

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,048
Hilarious that some fans here think that prolonged protests or boycotts will help the club.

Imagine being a prospective buyer or sponsor of the club. Imagine them having to deal with a constantly hostile fan base, much like Newcastle in the past. Would they jump in and suffer potential abuse or backlash from the fans?

Fans need to work with the owners, as much as how the fans want the owners to work with them. We cannot afford to let it spiral out of control.
I understand your thinking, but the idea here is that people want different leadership than what the Glazers have offered. If any prospective buyers are scared off by the recent actions they are probably not the different owners most fans want anyway.

The fans have put up with a lot over the years, and will again be the most supportive bunch if actual change can be seen to happen.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
I understand your thinking, but the idea here is that people want different leadership than what the Glazers have offered. If any prospective buyers are scared off by the recent actions they are probably not the different owners most fans want anyway.

The fans have put up with a lot over the years, and will again be the most supportive bunch if actual change can be seen to happen.
Everyone agrees with ‘different leadership’ and wants more communication and investment and to engage with the fans. The mob run with it and think we all support “SELL US TO ANYONE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT” and are very sensitive to any pushback at them on it.

We’re already at the announcing they’re putting people on ignore and flouting publicly out of a thread stage. It’s the third time the same people have completely fecked up a great starting position and initial support from fans.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,960
Location
UK, hun?
Everyone agrees with ‘different leadership’ and wants more communication and investment and to engage with the fans. The mob run with it and think we all support “SELL US TO ANYONE WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT” and are very sensitive to any pushback at them on it.

We’re already at the announcing they’re putting people on ignore and flouting publicly out of a thread stage. It’s the third time the same people have completely fecked up a great starting position and initial support from fans.
They are probably a bit bored of the sneering back-slapping from the same few posters hell-bent on pouring cold water on the entire movement. People don't have all the answers and a blueprint for what happens next, but that doesn't mean the first protest wasn't incredibly successful in achieving its aims (which was to draw global attention to the issue of the Glazers and make them sweat). I don't even know what your last sentence means. It reads like more disparaging remarks about fellow United fans, though.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
They got bored last time and set up their own football club. I’ve had more loyalty to socks over the years
 

Pickle85

Full Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
332
They are probably a bit bored of the sneering back-slapping from the same few posters hell-bent on pouring cold water on the entire movement. People don't have all the answers and a blueprint for what happens next, but that doesn't mean the first protest wasn't incredibly successful in achieving its aims (which was to draw global attention to the issue of the Glazers and make them sweat). I don't even know what your last sentence means. It reads like more disparaging remarks about fellow United fans, though.
Yup. The same posters feel like saying 'I don't like the Glazers any more than you do...' in some way then means that their 'better the devil you know...there's nothing to be done' argument is somehow more legitimate. I'm genuinely struggling to figure out what it is that posters like @stw2022 and @alexthelion WANT to happen. Do they want the Glazers to stay? If not, what's their suggested course of action? Or do we all just embrace their nihilistic, shrug of the shoulders 'nothing to be done' attitude and join them in vilifying the movement and laughing at the apparent intelligence levels of posters that actually want to take some kind of action to precipitate change?
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,960
Location
UK, hun?
They got bored last time and set up their own football club. I’ve had more loyalty to socks over the years
Oh stop. They could just as easily argue that United wasn't loyal to them as soon as the club became property of the Glazers. The people that started FC United were season ticket holders, former employees of Man United etc. It wasn't done on a fecking whim.
 

Harry Harries

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
5,960
Location
UK, hun?
Yup. The same posters feel like saying 'I don't like the Glazers any more than you do...' in some way then means that their 'better the devil you know...there's nothing to be done' argument is somehow more legitimate. I'm genuinely struggling to figure out what it is that posters like @stw2022 and @alexthelion WANT to happen. Do they want the Glazers to stay? If not, what's their suggested course of action? Or do we all just embrace their nihilistic, shrug of the shoulders 'nothing to be done' attitude and join them in vilifying the movement and laughing at the apparent intelligence levels of posters that actually want to take some kind of action to precipitate change?
Well said. Fans of the club are mobilising and doing something. That should be a source of pride for all United fans.
 

DarkDog

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
83
The financial figures are facts. By the way, I am a chartered accountant and stock trader. I analyse statements and reports all the time.

1. Where is this info? Newspapers make stuff up all the time, so it isn't exactly flawless proof. Edit: Just seen it. They were only in discussion, so it isn't much, to be honest. They were acting like it was close to signing.

2. As I said, it won't make them sell the club. Even if the value of the club dropped by $1bn, they would be in a situation where they would still be in a profitable position of $2.4bn on their initial investment. Hardly a pressurised position, is it? Why would they sell at a troubled time? The likelihood is this will all die down pretty quickly and the share price will gradually restore itself before real damage is done, so they would probably wait. In fact, if they were considering a sale already, this will probably only delay proceedings through limiting buyers and them waiting for the protests to pass.

3. This is drawn from the same financials that Swiss Ramble used. I split the times period down using his same figures. 94% of all expenditure is club related in the past eight years. Only 6% (interest and dividends) you can say is spent on the debt and Glazers. That SwissRamble is talking about a 15 year period, which is pretty useless, to be honest. Cut it down to eight year and you will see the real pattern of what is going on now. Ideally, you would spit it down more, but, in all likelihood, each year will now follow the split in the past eight year.

In fact, the change started under Ferguson, so the finances started veering towards the current position ten years ago.

4. It isn't good because, in all likelihood, if this went on for a long while, some of the damage will be permanent. What is the point of complaining about 6% of outgoings being spent on dividends and interest when you may lose equivalent or more revenue through this protesting and attacking sponsors? In the end, you may have even less to spend on the club after the Glazers are gone. Manutd could have real issues if it dropped more than 2% (dividends) as the rest is spent on either requirements or legally binding agreements.

You may think it is good, but remember that you would be risking losing some of our best players at this time. If it did too much damage, you could be saying goodbye to Fernandes, Rashford, Pogba (might have to remove the contract offer) etc. I wonder whether you would be so happy then?

5. You are underestimating business. Recovery is slower than damage.

I have posted the pie charts again.





You can argue against the numbers all you like, but what happened in the past is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a new owner, unless they are a sugar daddy, isn't going to make any difference to the financial situation we are in now. Nobody but a sugar daddy will pay off the debt. Why? Because it is actually a bad financial decision at this time. If it was paid off out the clubs money, it would take 25 years to recover that amount. So, it would be 2046 before the club actually started benefiting from paying it off.

Also, I am going to show the financials after Malcom Glazer died in 2015, so 2015 onwards. You will see the pie chart is almost identical to the Post-Ferguson one, showing that the pattern is continuing.

Sorry i am not accountant, but i have many accountants who do this for me. So i know something about buying and selling businesses. First of all. You sell high. That is what was the goal of Glazers when they took over. They knew they would sell high and my guess is that they had planned this ESL thing fairly long time ago. To make it the american sports closed shop model. I know some things about creating uproar and protests and i know how to create PR battles. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ited-want-wrap-77m-deal-Jadon-Sancho-NOW.html
Do you know where this news came from? As soon as the protest at OT and sponsor attacks happened then all the news came out Kane, Sancho, Haaland.
This is weakness on the Glazers side. Do you know why Glazers started to talk to us all of a sudden when we stormed OT and when we started attacking their sponsors?
Because they have wanted us to think that they are made of teflon. But in reality Glazer real estate business and other things are failing. They are not good businessmen. Their whole family net worth is about 5 Billion? out of which Man Utd is 3 billion, Tampa Bay is maybe 1,5 billion. Basically they are losing money on other businesses. Right now they are getting hard cash from Man Utd around 40 million a year? (20m in dividends and 20m in board bonus payments which i think most goes to Glazers)
At some point, when the sponsors are going away, fan protest are not going away they will have the option to let their names be dragged through the mud, family attacked and after all that get 40 million a year (or less) or to sell for 4 BILLION which is money they have never had. Believe me right now there is discontent inside their family. There are Glazers who are not at the board of Man Utd, they have never been here, but they have shares.
Accountant usually has small viewrange, you dont have to see the forest behind the trees. You are very good at looking at some small sector of business. I have to see the large picture every hour of my life. I have to know what certain politicians think or want to achieve. Behind every article i have to see why was it written, who ordered it. Have to know what my competition is planning and what my own business partners are thinking.
So its not so black and white. Also why are you taking out the first 8 years? Why is that not important. I think that to get the whole picture you have to see the whole story, every last penny that they have taken out of Man Utd or paid to banks.
Glazers are not taking money out of United because they have so much that they just want to take it out. It's because they dont have the money. Avram Glazer sold 5 million shares for 100 000 000 million dollars just because he needed to renovate his mansion and get some spending money. Does that tell you that he does so good in his daily life? This tells me that they are short of cash.
If those protest continue, attacks on sponsors continue and someone comes up with 4 billion offer, they will sell, believe u me.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
I think the extremist struggle with the idea fans who are unhappy with Glazer ownership don’t automatically think the solution is to roll the dice with the future of the football club and they become engaged when we don’t follow them to that conclusion

You can’t get angry at people who point out that wanting to sign Sancho and cheering the club being shunned by sponsors resulting in reduced income, is a complete nonsense
 

Pickle85

Full Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
332
I think the extremist struggle with the idea fans who are unhappy with Glazer ownership don’t automatically think the solution is to roll the dice with the future of the football club and they become engaged when we don’t follow them to that conclusion

You can’t get angry at people who point out that wanting to sign Sancho and cheering the club being shunned by sponsors resulting in reduced income, is a complete nonsense
Yup. The same posters feel like saying 'I don't like the Glazers any more than you do...' in some way then means that their 'better the devil you know...there's nothing to be done' argument is somehow more legitimate. I'm genuinely struggling to figure out what it is that posters like @stw2022 and @alexthelion WANT to happen. Do they want the Glazers to stay? If not, what's their suggested course of action? Or do we all just embrace their nihilistic, shrug of the shoulders 'nothing to be done' attitude and join them in vilifying the movement and laughing at the apparent intelligence levels of posters that actually want to take some kind of action to precipitate change?
So, as per my question above, what do you want to happen? All your posts seem to be concerned with is trying to discredit the current movement without providing any hint of what you see as being the solution. Again, we're now clear on what you think ISN'T the solution. So what is?
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
So, as per my question above, what do you want to happen? All your posts seem to be concerned with is trying to discredit the current movement without providing any hint of what you see as being the solution. Again, we're now clear on what you think ISN'T the solution. So what is?
Engagement. We’ve had fifteen years of ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with us isn’t a real fan’ look around and appreciate the grand total of feck and all it’s achieved.

I want is to engage and win concessions. We might not. But why not try?
 

bsCallout

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
3,997
Sorry i am not accountant, but i have many accountants who do this for me. So i know something about buying and selling businesses. First of all. You sell high. That is what was the goal of Glazers when they took over. They knew they would sell high and my guess is that they had planned this ESL thing fairly long time ago. To make it the american sports closed shop model. I know some things about creating uproar and protests and i know how to create PR battles. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ited-want-wrap-77m-deal-Jadon-Sancho-NOW.html
Do you know where this news came from? As soon as the protest at OT and sponsor attacks happened then all the news came out Kane, Sancho, Haaland.
This is weakness on the Glazers side. Do you know why Glazers started to talk to us all of a sudden when we stormed OT and when we started attacking their sponsors?
Because they have wanted us to think that they are made of teflon. But in reality Glazer real estate business and other things are failing. They are not good businessmen. Their whole family net worth is about 5 Billion? out of which Man Utd is 3 billion, Tampa Bay is maybe 1,5 billion. Basically they are losing money on other businesses. Right now they are getting hard cash from Man Utd around 40 million a year? (20m in dividends and 20m in board bonus payments which i think most goes to Glazers)
At some point, when the sponsors are going away, fan protest are not going away they will have the option to let their names be dragged through the mud, family attacked and after all that get 40 million a year (or less) or to sell for 4 BILLION which is money they have never had. Believe me right now there is discontent inside their family. There are Glazers who are not at the board of Man Utd, they have never been here, but they have shares.
Accountant usually has small viewrange, you dont have to see the forest behind the trees. You are very good at looking at some small sector of business. I have to see the large picture every hour of my life. I have to know what certain politicians think or want to achieve. Behind every article i have to see why was it written, who ordered it. Have to know what my competition is planning and what my own business partners are thinking.
So its not so black and white. Also why are you taking out the first 8 years? Why is that not important. I think that to get the whole picture you have to see the whole story, every last penny that they have taken out of Man Utd or paid to banks.
Glazers are not taking money out of United because they have so much that they just want to take it out. It's because they dont have the money. Avram Glazer sold 5 million shares for 100 000 000 million dollars just because he needed to renovate his mansion and get some spending money. Does that tell you that he does so good in his daily life? This tells me that they are short of cash.
If those protest continue, attacks on sponsors continue and someone comes up with 4 billion offer, they will sell, believe u me.
Some good points but who are they selling to?