What’s your best case outcome from these protests?

Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
14,814
Location
Somewhere out there
3 Champions League finals and Premier League titles off the back of a squad largely built and developed before they took over, and orchestrated by the greatest football manager of all time.

I think the last decade is a far better reflection of their ownership than the first 5 years was.
way to miss the point there.
 

abailey123

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
218
I’ve not read the thread fully and this may have already been mentioned but the best case scenario is for England to adopt a 50+1 ownership model similar to the German league. Yesterday’s protest keeps the pressure on government and keeps the issue in the spotlight. Fans are the bedrock of football and what the ESL has shown is that it’s time for change in English football. The Glazers (and other owners) treat clubs as cash cows.

I found myself screaming at the telly yesterday when Souness had the audacity to say the Glazers have invested billions into the squad when literally the money we spend has been off our revenues generated. They purchased the club and then financed their purchase with a loan, plummeting the club into debt. They then proceed to only pay the interest off each year leaving the club with such a huge liability yet still taking huge directors dividends. Meanwhile old Trafford is dated and needs upgrading.

The football ownership model in England needs to change, these last few weeks have only strengthened that
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
55,387
Location
Get to the chopppaaaa.
This particular conversation was about getting relegated. People who are willing to get them out at any cost regardless of consequence, who would take their place and how much it fecks the team over is genuinely cult like. The best case is yesterday and the threat of regulation brings them to the negotiating table - and hopefully the fan groups can be united in what they demand.
Perhaps fans will have to make the Glazers nervous next year by staying away for some home games. Glazers are businessmen. They're not fans. They're not in it for massaging their egos. They just want to make money. Protests are great but they'll probably ride them out.
 

R'hllor

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
13,257
Yep, Glazers would wait for value to drop around 1bn and then sell it :lol:, last few days this forum went next level of all kinds.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,351
Of course it makes no financial sense. If it made financial sense how would it get rid of the Glazers? Yeah mate let's just have good financially sound ideas that make United loads of money. That will get the Glazers to leave the club. Good one.
You seem to be responding to an imaginary post I made where I said "it would be bad for the club financially", like that wasn't evident.

When actually I said "it doesn't make financial sense". As in the internal logic of the "get relegated" plan doesn't hold, because it depends on ideas like "we wouldn't need investment because we will always be able to generate money".

Pro tip: I appreciate the sarcastic tone but it works better when what you're saying isn't stupid. Good effort though, feel free to try again.
 

Berbaclass

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,254
Location
Cooper Station
The best outcome is that the Glazers commit to changing how they operate and run the club.

I don’t consider them ‘bad’ owners but their motives compare to the fans are too far apart. If something can be done to align those two things then honestly that’s probably the best way forward.

In all honesty I think they might be the best people because anyone that has the capital to outright buy the club from them is probably a massive risk in itself and would be arguably worse that them.

This is not some pro-glazer agenda type post I just recognise that maybe like they say the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t...
 

Tiber

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
8,041
This was in Peter King's big post draft NFL column

3. I think the Glazers, Tampa Bay Bucs owners and also Manchester United owners, may soon have a decision to make on their Premier League team. Seems they’re public enemies after the failure of the Super League in Europe, with the locals in England believing they’re far more interested in money than the sport of soccer. Fans stormed the field Sunday, clashed with police, and caused the big game against Liverpool to be postponed. Stunning story. It’ll be interesting to see if the Glazers respond to the demands to sell the team.
One protest had more impact on awareness than 15 years of hashtags, scarves and open letters.
 

Gaussian

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
20
You seem to be responding to an imaginary post I made where I said "it would be bad for the club financially", like that wasn't evident.

When actually I said "it doesn't make financial sense". As in the internal logic of the "get relegated" plan doesn't hold, because it depends on ideas like "we wouldn't need investment because we will always be able to generate money".

Pro tip: I appreciate the sarcastic tone but it works better when what you're saying isn't stupid. Good effort though, feel free to try again.
Why would we or any club need investment? Do you think I care about winning trophies? I'm fine with just having the club back thanks. All we'd have to do it cut spending. If we play with shite and end up in non-league for the next 40-50 years. I honestly couldn't give a shit. I want to support my team and feel an actual part of it again. I want the tickets to be cheaper and have fun watching. If that means we have to be shit. I couldn't give one feck.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
33,560
The best outcome is that the Glazers commit to changing how they operate and run the club.

I don’t consider them ‘bad’ owners but their motives compare to the fans are too far apart. If something can be done to align those two things then honestly that’s probably the best way forward.

In all honesty I think they might be the best people because anyone that has the capital to outright buy the club from them is probably a massive risk in itself and would be arguably worse that them.

This is not some pro-glazer agenda type post I just recognise that maybe like they say the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t...
How do you want them to change? We need to reach a consensus on that.
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
94
Supports
Chelsea
Why would the Glazers pay off the debt with share sales? They have no legal obligation to pay it off. The debt is on the club not them. The likelihood is that the new owners will need to pay off the debt.

Equity (shares etc.) is usually more expensive than debt. Dividends are costly, but without them you are limiting the attractiveness of the shares.

Putting the entire club on the stock market will put the club at the whims of the shareholders who only have financial interests. Those shareholders will end up having the control because they are the ones with the money.
This.

Most of the suggestions being put forward are no more than fantasy.

The simple fact of the matter is that your current owners have done nothing illegal yet what happened yesterday was in the main against the current laws and or Covid Regulations.

If there ever was an advertisement to counter the involvement of fans at board level well to many that was yesterday at OT

Much is said about the 50%+1 model in Germany but as most will know that not all clubs operate according to that model ands it wasn't that long ago that it was 100% membership. Irrespective there are clubs that operate exclusively on a membership model alas some such as Real Madrid really don't provide any sort of recommendation as to how membership models should be structured.

In the two leagues that require a Bundesliga licence there are just 36 clubs professional clubs. Of that number a couple are 100% owned by commercial entities and at least one other RB simply restrict the number of members by charging significant membership fees. Clubs that have been in private ownership for in excess of 20 years can opt out of the 50+1 model

What so many forget that in England there are currently 91 Pl & FL teams & if you count the dozen or so full time professional teams in the National League then there are in excess of 100 full time professional teams in England alone. Any ownership model would either have to apply throughout the pyramid or there would have to be exceptions

Another thing that has to be factored in is that this review isn’t UK wide its just for England.

Of course every club that goes out of business is heartbreaking but what so many forget is that many many clubs both in the EFL and indeed non league simply wouldn’t exist without having 100% owners or 51% majority shareholders who in all probability wouldn’t be putting the significant sums they currently do if they didn’t have control of the decision making at these much smaller clubs.

Its not 100% the answer but the Chelsea Pitch Owners does offer a degree of protection in terms on name ownership, where the club plays but this model doesn’t give seat on one of Chelsea’s boards ( ironically RA isn’t a board member at Chelsea )

I have personal experience where a supporter rep had a seat on the board of my local non league club. What transpired was that on many many occasions the supporters rep was verbally abused because he couldn’t disclose information to his supporters club members who felt they were entitled to know things such as what a player was paid, transfer fees paid, the content of discussions about property development and so on.
 

Berbaclass

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,254
Location
Cooper Station
How do you want them to change? We need to reach a consensus on that.
I think a reasonable list of things is along the lines of

1. Ban on dividends until the club pays its debts off
2. Invest in the stadium and infrastructure of the club
3. Revamp the hierarchy
4. Fan representation on the board
5. Commitment to not forming a breakaway league
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
10,259
Location
Sunny Manc
Best case scenario is the Glazers start listening to the fans and invest in more than just commercial relationships. A change of ownership isn’t likely, and I certainly can’t envisage some billionaire white knight riding in with good intentions. It’ll be interesting to see who Woodward’s replacement is, as they’ll be the one to sort this mess out either way.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,069
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
I think a reasonable list of things is along the lines of

1. Ban on dividends until the club pays its debts off
2. Invest in the stadium and infrastructure of the club
3. Revamp the hierarchy
4. Fan representation on the board
5. Commitment to not forming a breakaway league
I don't think they'd see number 1 as remotely reasonable compared to the others. It'd cost them 100s of millions.

The rest seem do-able for sure. Regarding #4, aren't the likes of Fergie & Bobby Charlton already on the board to ensure that the "real" voice of Man United gets heard? Surely giving a couple more seats at the table would not be a stretch.
 

King7Eric

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
2,111
Location
Galway
I’m all for the protests, as long as we keep our dear leaders? They can be reformed? They will promise to do better? Another letter, maybe, from Joel?
If you read the first line fully I clearly say that I don't think we've done nearly enough for them to be removed. The best-case scenario is their total removal. But I'm also realistic enough to realize to achieve that we would need radical measures, which most people won't be willing to support. Just look at how many people on here are already condemning what happened yesterday. The next best thing if we can't get them totally removed is to ensure they invest in the club properly.

If it was totally up to me, I would ensure we do these kinds of protests before every game, cause as much disruption as possible (preferably without having to hurt policemen and bystanders), and generate negative publicity for the Glazers. But would the majority on here and globally support that? There were already people bellyaching that their afternoon got spoiled because they couldn't watch the game.
 

Steven-UK

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
419
Location
Manchester
The naivety of some 'supporters' is bordering on a Disneyland mentality.

I wonder if those protests would have gone ahead if we had won the league for the last 7 years, like we mainly did for many years before - with the same ownership. Sure, it wasn't ideal that the club was purchased based on a debt, but many businesses are - and Manchester United IS a business.

The failing here, is that the interest was the only element that was paid; but if that wasn't the case, then even less money would have gone on players, and the club. None of it ideal, but the shape of the original deal to buy the club was agreed, accepted, and moved forward. If the club was purchased via a loan, then it was fairly obvious from the beginning, that additional revenue would not be pumped into the club - unless through revenues received.

Also, being in business myself for way over 20 years, with high turnovers, etc. I understand that altruism is in short supply where business is concerned. Do you really think somebody is going to come in and spend £3-4billion and just hand out everything that fans 'demand'? They will want a return on the investment; it is a serious amount of capital to invest, and that debt will also need to be bought; albeit directly from the purchase price.

What SHOULD have happened by now, is that the loan amount (debt) should have been removed by way of the Glazer family selling some of their own shares (with the increased value of the club neutralising any immediately equity loss); that way there would be no need to service endless millions a year servicing any debt; the shareholders get a dividend, but shareholders will also want what is best for the club (in an ideal world....)

My feeling is that the Glazer family will stand firm, they have already made a lot of money with the increased value of the club over the years, and they will know that there is plenty more to be made long-term. The protests will be like a gnat pressing against an elephant's leg.

Those loons yesterday breaking into private property, fighting with the police, and causing criminal behaviour have tarnished the message that was intended.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,351
I don't think they'd see number 1 as remotely reasonable compared to the others. It'd cost them 100s of millions.

The rest seem do-able for sure. Regarding #4, aren't the likes of Fergie & Bobby Charlton already on the board to ensure that the "real" voice of Man United gets heard? Surely giving a couple more seats at the table would not be a stretch.
Unless things have changed they're non-executive Directors. They sit on a different board in what are effectively ceremonial positions rather than on the actual listed board.

This is the board as is, I think:

https://ir.manutd.com/corporate-governance/board-of-directors.aspx
 

FatTails

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
151
I find it hard to reconcile all the things the fans want into an outcome because a lot of it seems contradictory IMO.

We’ve spent years complaining about the PSGs and Man Cities of the world, crossing our fingers and hoping that FFP would finally be an actual thing, yet when our fans describe the kind of owner they want, they’re literally asking for the kind of owner that the clubs mentioned above have. Owners who would put in a significant amount of money to buy the club, only to expect no financial return on their investment, and possibly continue to put even more money into the club over the subsequent years. That sounds like terrible business for any sane person with business motives. You’d have to have ridiculous amounts of money, non-business reasons for spending it on United, and no expectations of a financial return.

I don’t want Saudi owners, and more generally, I don’t want football as a whole to embrace this kind of ownership model. It is bad enough as it is without more clubs going down that route.

The ESL was a culmination of FFP failure, and traditionally big clubs finally realizing that they can’t compete with clubs like PSG and Man City forever under the current model, so it made sense to create a competition that guarantees them financial rewards in line with their worldwide appeal, and also puts FFP-type constraints on the gulf-owned clubs.

People have to look at the semifinal of the CL, the ESL, and the current state of the squads of many of the ESL teams compared to, say, City. These things should not be looked at in isolation. We’re actually one of the very few teams who tried to go toe-to-toe with City in the amount we’ve spent on our squad, but it is a game we will lose sooner or later.

If things stay going exactly like they are, City will probably win 6-8 of the next PL titles, easily. Chelsea will win 1 or 2 (if you think that’s ridiculous, remember that City have won 5 of the last 10, and Chelsea won 2). Every now and then, another team will have everything, I mean everything, go right for them in a particular season and they will win the league (like Liverpool last season). We are big enough and have enough revenues to mean that we can just about stay close’ish to City, compete every year for 2nd and occasionally get everything right and win a title. Same thing will happen with the CL, albeit with a lot more surprises (beauty of the cups).
 

Berbaclass

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,254
Location
Cooper Station
I don't think they'd see number 1 as remotely reasonable compared to the others. It'd cost them 100s of millions.

The rest seem do-able for sure. Regarding #4, aren't the likes of Fergie & Bobby Charlton already on the board to ensure that the "real" voice of Man United gets heard? Surely giving a couple more seats at the table would not be a stretch.
Only in the short term. I wouldn't care about their dividends (which they're obviously entitled to take) if they didn't leave us in debt.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,529
I hope someone would offer £2.5 billion, the glazers accept and the new owner clears the debts.
£4 billion is what the glazers hope for and with only Joel 100% 'behind the club' after Avram sold some of his shares, they might have to admit they are not going to get that much. £2.5 billion might be enough for the other 4 who were never that keen, to put pressure on the other 2.
I also think £2.5 billion may be the lowest they would accept as that is the value on the stock exchange at the moment. No one is going to pay 4 billion.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,069
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.

bsCallout

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
3,290
I don't think the owners have much choice other than to start rethinking the purpose of their ownership.

There are things fans want to see that will ultimately appease us and to be honest have no negative benefit on the value of the club.

We want to see big investments in our stadium and training facilities, we want to see investments in the squad that are bigger than the debt repayments, we want to see smaller dividends being taken. And we want there to be open dialogue between fans and the owners.

I don't see the Glazers selling and I don't see 50+1 being viable, ultimately they could slowly over many years agree to sell shares to fan groups only.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
318
[/QUOTE]


I can’t do the maths but if we times the number of fans who have been encouraged to give the group money by the number of years they’ve been asked to donate then we can conclude that stamps for ‘open letters’ are much more expensive than we realised so let’s not ask too many awkward questions
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
There won’t be Saudi ownership. Their Newcastle experience probably shows that. There would not even be a Glazer type takeover if it was happening today.
We are facing a period of at least some regulation over ownership. Enough is enough. We don’t want the Glazers at the club. They have disrespected fans, staff, the club. Out is where we want them. Not here. Focus off, Glazers. Go suck the lifeblood of some other entity.
That's fine, but whatabout the aftermath of getting rid? Just saying "Glazers out" is not an answer to the problem, you must think of the consequences of doing so.
 

SoCross

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
2,535
Best case scenario is the Glazers investing in the team, the club, the Stadium, the facilities and making us competitive again. Plus a restructure of the football side of the hierarchy which they seem be working on.

They are running a private company. So have a sense of social responsibility and re-invest in the company and stakeholders without just taking from the company.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,529
I dont know if this has been mentioned, but the only other way I can think of and legally I dont know if it would be viable, is for the Premier league to fold end of a season and the season after a new Premier league starts with different rules that states all clubs that play in the Premier league (or whatever its rebranded as) must .... and you can add whatever rules you want. Be owned 51% by fans, Major shareholder can only own 25%. Cannot put a club in debt. Cant spend more than you earn on player transfer fees, etc etc.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
If you read the first line fully I clearly say that I don't think we've done nearly enough for them to be removed. The best-case scenario is their total removal. But I'm also realistic enough to realize to achieve that we would need radical measures, which most people won't be willing to support. Just look at how many people on here are already condemning what happened yesterday. The next best thing if we can't get them totally removed is to ensure they invest in the club properly.

If it was totally up to me, I would ensure we do these kinds of protests before every game, cause as much disruption as possible (preferably without having to hurt policemen and bystanders), and generate negative publicity for the Glazers. But would the majority on here and globally support that? There were already people bellyaching that their afternoon got spoiled because they couldn't watch the game.
Fair enough
 

Pavl3n

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
1,289
Until there's a sensible solution, these protests feel pointless.
What are we protesting against? Alright, we want the Glazers out. Let's imagine they read the MUST letter, they shit their pants and put up the club for sale.
And then what? Some other 'coon comes around, buys it, sweet talk of imminent improvements, until the #GlazersOut euphoria wears out and all the fans realise
the wolf only changed it's skin, but not it's nature.

That plan MUST proposed in their letter is so unrealistic with Glazers in the driving seat. They won't meet even a sub point from that plan. You simply can't expect anything to change whilst they're in charge. If things are about to change, the owner/s of the club has to be a Manchester United supporter or a group of supporters. Somebody who has the best interest at heart and is willing to set the rules the club is run by.

The only way forward is finding that group of people. Surely there's at least one die hard United fan that is worth at least 5-6 billions. Add to that MUST and former United players who might want to have a share in the club. Unite all those in an organisation and then bid for the club. That's the way forward.

Peaceful protests won't cut it. The only reason yesterday's game was postponed is some protesters were NOT peaceful. Policemen were injured and therefore the game was off. If you want to postpone another game, peaceful protests won't do it.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
We wouldn't need that sort of money as a Championship side. Once the Glazers are gone we would merely need enough money to get ourselves promoted again.

If Villa or Newcastle can do that, Manchester United with a 75k stadium and 650million fans worldwide certainly can.

Once we're back in the top flight and the shackles of Glazer greed are off, we will work our way back up.
What if the new owners are even worse and don't put back into the club as much as the Glazers?

How long are you prepared to wait for things to improve (and what if they never do)?
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
I dont know if this has been mentioned, but the only other way I can think of and legally I dont know if it would be viable, is for the Premier league to fold end of a season and the season after a new Premier league starts with different rules that states all clubs that play in the Premier league (or whatever its rebranded as) must .... and you can add whatever rules you want. Be owned 51% by fans, Major shareholder can only own 25%. Cannot put a club in debt. Cant spend more than you earn on player transfer fees, etc etc.
That’s the idea, yes. Reform it
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
Until there's a sensible solution, these protests feel pointless.
What are we protesting against? Alright, we want the Glazers out. Let's imagine they read the MUST letter, they shit their pants and put up the club for sale.
And then what? Some other 'coon comes around, buys it, sweet talk of imminent improvements, until the #GlazersOut euphoria wears out and all the fans realise
the wolf only changed it's skin, but not it's nature.

That plan MUST proposed in their letter is so unrealistic with Glazers in the driving seat. They won't meet even a sub point from that plan. You simply can't expect anything to change whilst they're in charge. If things are about to change, the owner/s of the club has to be a Manchester United supporter or a group of supporters. Somebody who has the best interest at heart and is willing to set the rules the club is run by.

The only way forward is finding that group of people. Surely there's at least one die hard United fan that is worth at least 5-6 billions. Add to that MUST and former United players who might want to have a share in the club. Unite all those in an organisation and then bid for the club. That's the way forward.

Peaceful protests won't cut it. The only reason yesterday's game was postponed is some protesters were NOT peaceful. Policemen were injured and therefore the game was off. If you want to postpone another game, peaceful protests won't do it.
see this:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/wha...come-from-these-protests.462505/post-27161808
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
What if the new owners are even worse and don't put back into the club as much as the Glazers?

How long are you prepared to wait for things to improve (and what if they never do)?
Then we protest them too. We commit to not accepting anything less than what's best for the club.

Why are you so intent on being submissive to somebody who wants to exploit our support for profit?

They need us more than we need them.