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

[sglowrider]

We’ll get a sponsor so it won’t be a 20m reduction but if it was they could just not pay out dividends...wild suggestion I know.

... so what did it all achieve then? Sweet feck all then -- since we now need to look for another sponsor sharpish

The timing of it is the issue. (It kicks in in July -- middle of the transfer window.)

Its also unlikely we will find another sponsor that will pay us that same amounts (like the Chevy to Teamviewer deal has shown) and especially in pandemic times and one with an antagonistic fan base.

Just when the footballing side is starting to get its act together, we need to find money to compete against the Chelseas, Liverpools and obviously Citeh, we have created another roadblock for ourselves. They will need to budget for this shortfall until they find some £20million ASAP.

There will be transfer fees or cuts elsewhere.

Like the postponement or delay of the Liverpool match which led us into a scheduling pile-up of 3 matches in 6 days.

This is just another own goal.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

There's always the Saudi Murderer.

Nobody else would cough up £3bn or £4bn and not want their cut.

You keep saying this but it just sounds like whataboutery. Sure, other owners will try to extract money, but if the Glazers have been driven out because the fans have driven down the price of the club because they didn't like the previous owners, any new owner is gonna think twice before exploiting the club to the extent that the Glazers have done.

Manchester United has the potential to be eye-wateringly profitable - that's why the Glazers have done what they did. What the fans are trying to do is create an environment where the club can still be profitable, but where, if you want it to be profitable, it is necessary to maintain fan involvement in the decision-making process. If you go against the fans you make the business unprofitable by provoking fan unrest, if you work with the fans then there is harmony and profits increase.

I don't want sportswashers or oil barons in charge of Manchester United, but we can still find better owners than the Glazers if we push them out.

 

[AltiUn]

20 million a year is one Sanchez. We are worth billions. People need to chill. Put the fans first over glory for a little while and everyone will end up doing ok out of this if the glazers do what they’ve promised. The only way to guarantee that is to put pressure on them and it seems to be working.

I'm actually in the camp of letting the Glazers rectify their mistakes, but I do think this sends a clear and concise message.

 

[Mickeza]

... so what did it all achieve then? Sweet feck all then -- since we now need to look for another sponsor sharpish

It’s brought them to the negotiating table for the first time in 16 years...and shown them the fans have the power to bring it all down.

 

[sglowrider]

Every one keeps says it's 'our' club and yet they think it will work by hurting 'our' club?

The only way this will work is by targeting the Glazers directly themselves. Not the club. They have and always will be comfortable with the situation simply because they live an ocean apart.

Why do you think the Glazers have the 'business people' managing the club? They pay them the big bucks to deal with these problems -- whilst they are thousands of miles away.

You want to make them feel uncomfortable -- target them in their personal space in the States. Not self-hurting 'our' club. The constant bombardment of protests in the States, badgering or hounding of the press there etc will have a direct impact on them.

Actions like this will only affect the club; our ability to compete and ultimately it's the problem of the likes of Woodward. Not the Glazers.

 

[sglowrider]

I don't want sportswashers or oil barons in charge of Manchester United, but we can still find better owners than the Glazers if we push them out.

So the fans are the ones who will find better owners for a £4billion deal? That's quite the objective or Rolodex you have on your desktop.

What are your criteria for a 'better' owner?

 

[ForeverRed1]

That doesn't mean they have 4 billion in the bank. Most of that is the value of Manchester United and the Buccaneers. They'd have to sell their stake in those teams to actually turn that "net worth" into cash.

chelsea and Man City owners do it.

 

[Eckers99]

So the fans are the ones who will find better owners for a £4billion deal? That's quite the objective or Rolodex you have on your desktop.

What are your criteria for a 'better' owner?

Conversely, the current criteria for worse owners is limited to not committing acts of genocide and/or assassinations.

Basically any billionaire that doesn't bomb the Yemen or kill dissidents is fine. There must be at least one of them.

 

[sglowrider]

Conversely, the current criteria for worse owners is limited to not committing acts of genocide and/or assassinations.

Basically any billionaire that doesn't bomb the Yemen or kill dissidents is fine. There must be at least one of them.

What about billionaires who made money off the backs of the poor like sweatshops? Or those who broke the law in getting their millions and then later billions?
Or those with dodgy political connections? Or those who are fronting for some cabal as happened to other clubs?

The point is even Bill Gates was considered the evil one at one stage of his career -- thus the Gates Foundation to whitewash his 'evilness' or legacy.

 

[Mindhunter]

I fully understand where you're coming from with your concern about losing sponsorship deals. It does weaken us in the transfer market. However, on the flip side, if the club's value tumbles due to lack of footballing and financial success, we could likely see a new buyer who could then be willing to invest in the ground and players. The point is would any new buyer similar to Glazers would want to see returns on their investment.

It would be rare to have owners who are in the business to promote their brand like City with Abu Dhabi or football-mad Roman who is not concerned about profits. Where are we going to find such owners?

Although it is a possibility, the probability is very low.

Glazers would have been willing to sell at a lower price if they were bleeding their own money. The leeches have saddled the club with debt so it doesn't impact them at all. They are under no pressure to sell as their personal wealth isn't tied to the valuation of MUFC. All they want from the club is 26m dividend per year which they will get.

Unfortunately, anyone willing to pay the Glazer's the expected price wouldn't be able to do so without a loan. Petro-states and oligarchs are obviously out of the question.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Well at worst we will have zero transfer budget in next few years, but who cares, we already have a decent squad and should be fine for a while! At this very moment we must united together to kick Glazer out of Old trafford!

 

[glazed]

This is just another own goal.

No it's brilliant. The message to the Glazers' next accountant is that this club has peaked in value. Whatever revenue you take out is less than you will lose as the value of the asset drops. Like paying a mortgage on a house when house prices are going down. It makes more sense to sell if you don't give a sh1t about the asset either way.

A few of these and a willing buyer and just maybe those vultures will take their leave.

 

[Eckers99]

What about billionaires who made money off the backs of the poor like sweatshops? Or those who broke the law in getting their millions and then later billions?
Or those with dodgy political connections? Or those who are fronting for some cabal as happened to other clubs?

The point is even Bill Gates was considered the evil one at one stage of his career -- thus the Gates Foundation to whitewash his 'evilness' or legacy.

None of those examples quite stack up against genocide though do they?

I broadly agree that it takes a rare kind of self-interest to become a billionaire but there's a spectrum of cnutishness and I'm sure there are plenty of billionaires who don't arrange the killing of journalists in their spare time. We've got the bog-standard, typically selfish yet somehow incompetent billionaires, so I'd take any degree above that.

 

[Beachryan]

FIrstly, if it was written by Jamie f'ing Jackson it's going to paint us in the worst possible light. I will never understand the Guardian replacing such a great writer (Daniel Taylor) with a sensationlist that gets off on writing negativity about United.

Secondly - to all those applauding this - what's the plan then? Ensure Ole doesn't have any money to spend this summer, so we miss out on the CL next leave and watch Fernandes and Pogba leave so we're even more skint so the Glazers erm...see an asset lose some value? And then in some made-up world, our price will fall below, say, 1bn and some other totally altruistic owner will pony up and finally we'll just be left alone to footballing matters and take our true place atop the non-sugar-daddy mountain?

Yeah, good luck with that.

Sometimes doing the thing that makes you feel better about a bad situation isn't actually a good thing to do.

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

So the fans are the ones who will find better owners for a £4billion deal? That's quite the objective or Rolodex you have on your desktop.

What are your criteria for a 'better' owner?

Owners who communicate with the fans and take the perspectives of fans and others connected to the club on board. Owners who view Manchester United as a football club and not as a franchise.

Fans are not gonna go out and canvas for owners, obviously. That is not an objective anyone has suggested except for you, as far as I can tell. The role of the fans is to create a situation where ownership that does not engage with us is unprofitable, and then to see who wants to engage with us on those terms.

 

[Ali Dia]

I'm actually in the camp of letting the Glazers rectify their mistakes, but I do think this sends a clear and concise message.

Ya me too. Better the devil you know. If they fix up the facilities, sign the right guys, start to repay the debt in a meaningful way while also bringing the fans into the fold then fine they can take their huge fees for owning us and finally hold their heads high around the fans. You know they are thinking we eventually want to sell this for 4b we can’t let it be seen to be falling apart and losing value under our stewardship and the whole world is talking about it. The fans finally have some taken some power back so I think this is all fine for now. It’s what the glazers actually do is the real question. If they promise the world and bail I think the local fans aren’t going to stop so easily this time and you could see with Woodward’s house and the latest protests the locals are not going to let it slide. It could get ugly yet. The glazers should keep their word and work fast!

 

[Glazers Out!]

Glazers, We decide when you get paid! Get Out!

 

[Sultan]

Owners who communicate with the fans and take the perspectives of fans and others connected to the club on board. Owners who view Manchester United as a football club and not as a franchise.

Fans are not gonna go out and canvas for owners, obviously. That is not an objective anyone has suggested except for you, as far as I can tell. The role of the fans is to create a situation where ownership that does not engage with us is unprofitable, and then to see who wants to engage with us on those terms.

If the Glazers changed approach and engage with fans (very likely not) would they then be given a free card by the fans? There still remains the club being bled with debt and dividends which any prospective new owners would likely do the same.

The best option I see a way out of this is the legislation used in Germany 49/51% fan ownership. Over to you Boris. I promise you'll have my vote. That's a given anyway until Sir Kier remains the leader.

 

[Tincanalley]

FreddieTHEReddie here now but nothing from AlexTHELion. Hmmmm..

I knew it was different people inside that suit!! Unhygienic

 

[acolyte]

chelsea and Man City owners do it.

Sheikh Mansour is worth something like USD 22 billion and Abramovich is worth USD 15 billion. Joel Glazer is worth 1 billion. They both have a lot more cash in the bank than the Glazers.

 

[Sultan]

Sheikh Mansour is worth something like USD 22 billion and Abramovich is worth USD 15 billion. Joel Glazer is worth 1 billion. They both have a lot more cash in the bank than the Glazers.

A Billion is enough money to live in luxury for many generations. Any more is just vanity and greed. Just interest money would suffice. I understand it's low at the moment. However, this will not be the case for long.

 

[acolyte]

A Billion is enough money to live in luxury for many generations. Any more is just vanity and greed. Just interest money would suffice. I understand it's low at the moment. However, this will not be the case for long.

I don't mean to defend any of these billionaires but we're deviating from the point: net worth is not money in the bank. Being worth a certain amount of money doesn't mean you have that much money to spend. What I'm trying to say is the Glazers aren't wealthy enough to solve our debt or make the investments in the squad or in Old Trafford that need to be made, at least not with their own money.

Edit: to clarify further, I think any team owner who can't afford to be a good steward to the team they own should sell to someone who can. The Glazers should sell to someone who doesn't need to make money from Manchester United. Unfortunately, I can't imagine who that would be outside of a sport-washing sovereign wealth fund

 

[GreenFieldsGoldenBarley]

If the Glazers changed approach and engage with fans (very likely not) would they then be given a free card by the fans? There still remains the club being bled with debt and dividends which any prospective new owners would likely do the same.

The best option I see a way out of this is the legislation used in Germany 49/51% fan ownership. Over to you Boris. I promise you'll have my vote. That's a given anyway until Sir Kier remains the leader.

I think the Glazers will never regain the trust of the United fans now. There's the dividends and the 16 years of neglect, not to mention the leveraged buyout. And anyway, from everything I know about how the Glazers do business, they won't be willing to make concessions that would satisfy us.

I have no idea what is possible - I think that owners across the football premier league and the football league would have to be put under sustained pressure before 50+1 becomes viable - but we've gotta dream big in this moment, view this as a game that is winnable, because maybe it is and we don't find out if we don't try.

And yeah, shout out to Starmer for somehow thinking that having no policies and no charisma and throwing the more passionate members of his party under a bus repeatedly was a winning political strategy!

 

[Nevilles.Wear.Prada]

The glazers already set us back years. Club already hurting for years, just look at our stature past decade. This 200mil isn't going to your roofs nor towards haaland anyways. Its gone for a good cause. Pain now or pain over the years scenario.

Its a problem for glazers to solve now, you can't take the club and its fans for a ride. What were they expecting the fans would do with that type of leeching ownership as the club falling behind and watching your rivals take your place? Fans can only take so much.
Im glad alot of fans made it happen.
Now lets keep the momentum.

 

[stw2022]

I dont believe the story at all to be honest it seems a bit planted by those who want their campaign to be viewed as a success.

The overall media coverage has been quite limited. It’s trended only briefly on social media. There isn’t even word from actual sponsors that have been targeted by it that they’re in any way affected or concerned. Yet a non-targeted business who nobody knew were ever in talks to sponsor us, who likely has never heard of the campaign, has pulled out of contract negotiations suddenly people know about?

At some point of if has all the hallmarks of bullshit it probably is.

The most that’s happened is that in order to create a story this company was approached and asked hypothetically if the campaign would affect their decision to sponsor us and their “Er....I guess” reply has been extrapolated. Which is why it’s being reported by MUST-friendly Jamie Jackson and not a financial or business reporter

 

[edcunited1878]

200M over the course of 10 years....they will find another brand who will at least pay more than what AON is paying. Training kit and naming rights to their training complex and one of the few main global partnerships.

As many said, the writer of the column is a gigantic doom and gloom writer when it comes to United.

And wouldn't be surprised if this brand, who walked away after signing an agreement that was supposed to apparently start next month, would have had to pay an out clause fee.

So United will regroup commercially and get another good deal. And they are actively selling a car brand to be a partner of the club now that it is an open category.

 

[stw2022]

How can a story whose sources are so good as to even know the exact amount the contract was for not have even a single off the record quote?

 

[Wibble]

200 million, crikey. That's gotta hurt.

They won't like it but they will find another sponsor so the loss won't be anywhere near 200 mill as it is over 10 years. Even assuming the reporting is correct.

 

[maximus419]

What makes me laugh is all these fans are basically saying is, we don't want capitalism.

The catalyst for many owners of clubs is generating money, the glazers saw an opportunity and grabbed it, it's what capitalism is all about.

Yes, we'd probably prefer dirty russian or Arab money, but ultimately that's another can of worms that you could go into about the unsuitability of other owners too. However we've got the glazer family and realistically, they've been decent owners all things considered.

The fans want success but that costs money, lots of it. Players/agents are the biggest leaches in football, their demands increase the debt on all clubs which is unsustainable. The glazer family are only leveraging debt onto the club to keep it competitive. Eventually all clubs will run out of money on the current model, unless their is a wage/transfer cap.

Sadly most fans are thick and don't really get business. They are living in a romantic football world of football from 30 years ago. The game hasn't been for the normal working man since sky injected billions into the game. This is just part of the evolution of football and sport in general. Football is no different to any business or sport really. The truth is, the club will die if the fans want to bleed the club of sponsorship and revenue. The choice is simple, glazers = having a competitive club. No glazers + no sponsors = club in freefall.

 

[Jam]

People demanding owners to clear debts and make some big name signings then applauding when we lose 200 million???

So you’re Pro-Glazer?

 

[Jam]

What makes me laugh is all these fans are basically saying is, we don't want capitalism.

The catalyst for many owners of clubs is generating money, the glazers saw an opportunity and grabbed it, it's what capitalism is all about.

Yes, we'd probably prefer dirty russian or Arab money, but ultimately that's another can of worms that you could go into about the unsuitability of other owners too. However we've got the glazer family and realistically, they've been decent owners all things considered.

The fans want success but that costs money, lots of it. Players/agents are the biggest leaches in football, their demands increase the debt on all clubs which is unsustainable. The glazer family are only leveraging debt onto the club to keep it competitive. Eventually all clubs will run out of money on the current model, unless their is a wage/transfer cap.

Sadly most fans are thick and don't really get business. They are living in a romantic football world of football from 30 years ago. The game hasn't been for the normal working man since sky injected billions into the game. This is just part of the evolution of football and sport in general. Football is no different to any business or sport really. The truth is, the club will die if the fans want to bleed the club of sponsorship and revenue. The choice is simple, glazers = having a competitive club. No glazers + no sponsors = club in freefall.

What am I reading? Can’t we go back to the old New Member system and quarantine these people before they spread their deceit and procreate?

 

[V.O.]

What makes me laugh is all these fans are basically saying is, we don't want capitalism.

The catalyst for many owners of clubs is generating money, the glazers saw an opportunity and grabbed it, it's what capitalism is all about.

Yes, we'd probably prefer dirty russian or Arab money, but ultimately that's another can of worms that you could go into about the unsuitability of other owners too. However we've got the glazer family and realistically, they've been decent owners all things considered.

The fans want success but that costs money, lots of it. Players/agents are the biggest leaches in football, their demands increase the debt on all clubs which is unsustainable. The glazer family are only leveraging debt onto the club to keep it competitive. Eventually all clubs will run out of money on the current model, unless their is a wage/transfer cap.

Sadly most fans are thick and don't really get business. They are living in a romantic football world of football from 30 years ago. The game hasn't been for the normal working man since sky injected billions into the game. This is just part of the evolution of football and sport in general. Football is no different to any business or sport really. The truth is, the club will die if the fans want to bleed the club of sponsorship and revenue. The choice is simple, glazers = having a competitive club. No glazers + no sponsors = club in freefall.

Alright, Gordon Gekko.

 

[sglowrider]

They won't like it but they will find another sponsor so the loss won't be anywhere near 200 mill as it is over 10 years. Even assuming the reporting is correct.

The deal in place was supposed to kick in THIS July. It will certainly affect this summer's transfer window if the reporting is correct.

 

[Wibble]

The deal in place was supposed to kick in THIS July. It will certainly affect this summer's transfer window if the reporting is correct.

Maybe. The debt might just rise a bit more or get paid down less. I think the publicity is more harmful (or helpful depending on your view) than the loss of 20 mill or likely less.

 

[Roboc7]

That isn't the worst case scenario. Not even close. The big issue here is that there are no seriously interested buyers. Its worth repeating too -

No. Seriously. Interested. Buyers

The main reason that there isn't is because the valuation of this club does not make us a worthwhile investment, so the chances are pretty good that the next owner will need some serious financial backing just to buy it (which puts more debt on the club), and then some even more creative ways of monetizing United - most likely a stadium rebrand will be high on that list. That makes me uncomfortable.

I'm not against what is happening here, to be clear. I'm just not on board with the viewpoint that this isn't a massive gamble that couldn't easily and spectacularly blow up in our faces and set our club back for a very long time. It might not, but it might.

If the Glazers are forced out for loading the club with debt why would someone else buy the club and load it with even more debt. Makes zero sense.

I understand people’s concern but there’s too much scaremongering like next owners will have even more debt or a lost sponsorship deal will set us back years. How many years have these incompetent, greedy owners set us back?.

 

[stw2022]

If the Glazers are forced out for loading the club with debt why would someone else buy the club and load it with even more debt. Makes zero sense.

I understand people’s concern but there’s too much scaremongering like next owners will have even more debt or a lost sponsorship deal will set us back years. How many years have these incompetent, greedy owners set us back?.

But nobody knows. Nobody has a clue whether the next owners will be benevolent billionaire life-long fans or asset stripping venture capitalists.

Someone willing to take that chance has the right to call themselves a fan? I don’t see it.

Unless your emotional attachment is so that you can just shrug and walk away if it’s the latter I don’t see how any fan would be open to take that risk. Literally throwing a coin the the air and claiming that fans should be okay with just risk.

Hyperbole aside, we’ve struggled to replace Fergie but were second and the last 16 years haven’t been awful. Certainly not a basis for being relaxed on literally risking the club in the outcome of an unknowable coin toss

 

[::sonny::]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Jazz]

Don't complain when we can't afford transfers. Also, we have non football people working at the club. Let's hope there are no cuts to their jobs.

You are hurting the club, not the Glazers.

 

[Tarrou]

Don't complain when we can't afford transfers. Also, we have non football people working at the club. Let's hope there are no cuts to their jobs.

You are hurting the club, not the Glazers.

how can you hurt one without the other?

 

[::sonny::]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date