What’s your best case outcome from these protests?

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,382
Location
Dublin
How do you want them to change? We need to reach a consensus on that.
The debt is the major thing imo. That should be first and foresmost in my view.
 

Tiber

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
8,041
This protest is obviously a big story in the UK. But it was also front page of the New York Times, front page of the Washington Post, front page of the Tampa Bay newspaper (only relevant in this one case), broadcast live on BBC News, Sky News and multiple US news networks and has come up as 'stunning news' in numerous NFL columns I have read this morning. That is how you promote an agenda, a better idea than paying £40 to attend a match while wearing a green scarf.

Is any of this going to force the Glazers out? No. But it damages the brand and keeps the discontent on the agenda in a way in which a decade and a half of scarves and hashtags never did. Everyone knows United fans hate the Glazers, but nobody ever gave a shit until the super league. Even on here (including me) the most the majority ever did about it recently was grumble about Woodward in transfer threads. None of this will get them out, but it will keep pressure on and damage the brand, sponsorship and TV deals which are so important to them.

I absolutely condemn the twats who fought with police (they should be arrested and thrown in jail) but I commend those who took a stand yesterday and I was glad to see the game called off. The Glazers don't care about boycotting matches or even declining UK TV viewership - this has been clear for as long as they owned the club, but they recently openly admitted it with talk of 'legacy fans' of Super League clubs. But you can be sure that the club is currently dealing with outrage from 100 different TV networks and official wine sponsors - you want to hurt the Glazers, that's how you do it.

Yesterday on here numerous posters sneered at fans who 'disrespected the Glazers private property' but I can't find it in my heart to be outraged at someone for marking the paint on a crossbar or nicking the corner flag. And if the cost of getting the Glazers out of the club forever is the short term disruption of fixtures? I hope this continues.

 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
94
Supports
Chelsea
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.
Yep yep yep. nooooo

If you ever wanted the “ big six” to be able to justify a ESLthen that would create a perfect storm for it to happen

Irrespective let’s just look at your suggestion regarding putting a club into debt. What would that look like ? Not buying players unless you’ve the odd £40 million or so on deposit? What about building a new stadium or what about operating on an overdraft. What happens if say there is another pandemic?

The ship re 50+1% has probably sailed the best that you could get too is possibly a seat on a board or something like that.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
The naivety of some 'supporters' is bordering on a Disneyland mentality.
tick. Naïveté
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.
If we were winning we wouldn’t care &
Praise the Glazers. Two for the price of one.
....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.
Business is business. It was a hostile takeover so suck it up, legacy fans. (Adjust mask)
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'?
Business is business. Naïveté. Yes you are on a roll, mr hefty turnover man.
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....)
But let’s insert some “reality”... despondency #2
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.
The people who went over the top and injured police were wrong. On that we agree. The Elephant in the room is you seeing fans as gnats, against all powerful owners against whom resistance is futile.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,587
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.
So we keep protesting against owners until we get one we like? Yeah, good luck getting new owners with that plan.

It's not being submissive, it's being realistic, something which a high proportion of Glazer-outs don't appear to be showing at this time.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
So we keep protesting against owners until we get one we like? Yeah, good luck getting new owners with that plan.

It's not being submissive, it's being realistic, something which a high proportion of Glazer-outs don't appear to be showing at this time.
Yes.

I grant you, that this would be more effective if we didn't have to cater to all the softcocks who will cross the picket line in the name of realism.
 

Chicken United 7

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
24
Last week’s peaceful protest - bad press on the Glazers. That was excellent. The fans were painted in a good light and the Glazers in a bad light, thus increasing the pressure on them to sell. That is the point of a protest.

Yesterday’s protest - absolutely nothing. Sections of the media, clearly those paid by the head honchos of the club, have already painted all the fans, including the brilliant ones who protested peacefully, in the same bad light that the Glazers were meant to be shown in. Aside from the idiotic aspect of taking the corner flag, assaulting the police and breaking cameras, we need to realise that only some fans are seeing the as a victory for fans, unlike after the ESL protests when there was universal agreements that fans had won.

However, even with the good protests, all they accomplish is more bad press and pressure on our awful, parasitic owners. That probably holds only 5% importance in getting them out, considering they won’t be too affected by the backlash because they live thousands of miles away.

I’ve reiterated this in a few threads already; the only guaranteed way to get these people out is with a complete boycott. Locals don’t purchase season tickets, fans from abroad don’t buy one-off tickets and ALL fans simply don’t buy any merchandise related to United. Once the revenue and therefore their dividends decrease as the club becomes less liquid, they will go. These guys are nothing more than leeching money men.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
MUST letter to Glazers without snidey comment from newbie who joined this year.
 
Last edited:

Steven-UK

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
419
Location
Manchester
tick. Naïveté
If we were winning we wouldn’t care &
Praise the Glazers. Two for the price of one.

Business is business. It was a hostile takeover so suck it up, legacy fans. (Adjust mask)

Business is business. Naïveté. Yes you are on a roll, mr hefty turnover man.

But let’s insert some “reality”... despondency #2

The people who went over the top and injured police were wrong. On that we agree. The Elephant in the room is you seeing fans as gnats, against all powerful owners against whom resistance is futile.
You really have no idea, do you; and it's highly likely you've never even stepped foot inside Old Trafford.
 

Matthew84!

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
404
Glazers put it up for sale,
Perhaps sell it over a period of time with people buying 10 % or something as its expensive
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,327
how can they build trust if they don’t ever enter into a dialogue?
Don't think they are remotely interested in engaging in dialogue with the match going fan, its the WWTV audience and overseas sponsers they want, hence the attempt at a '3 ring circus' via the Super league.
Once Disney, Amazon and Netflix showed an interest in 'Soccer' you just knew where this was all going.
 

K Stand Knut

Full Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,858
Location
Stretford End
The more I think about it, the more I cannot see a reasonable outcome to this matter.

It has been discussed to death already but nobody is dumping £4bn on a football club with a ROI of circa £20m/annum.

Someone might have a leveraged buyout but I suspect that this might get vetoed by the government in this day and age.

i personally don’t want an oil state anywhere near our ownership.

As a best case scenario, it might be best if the Glazers were to agree to pay off the debt and remain as the owners.

At least we can then run as a debt-free business and live off our revenue streams like any decent club should
 

Damon1559

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
6
Location
Belfast
I totally understand a large section of fans would be against it.

For the reasons we’ve both mentioned though, regarding the difficulty in finding a buyer that has deep enough pockets to buy us without then gutting us financially to re-line their pockets, means there isn’t any other possible positive outcome.

At least we would be able to fully operate to our fullest potential. We are a behemoth of a club, a giant, built on the life’s work of men like SAF and Busby who elevated us to our current standing in the game. Why then should we of all clubs be restricted whilst other clubs get a lottery win to bypass us and spend ten times what they could previously. We deserve an owner that doesn’t seek a financial return, like our competitors have.

The game has moved on, we would all go back to the glory years under SAF if we could, winning everything whilst being ‘morally sound’ (or robbed by our owners is another way of putting it.)

I’m sick of us having to work in spite of owners instead of being pushed forward and liberated by them like our competitors are.
I couldn't have put that any better myself and I would imagine a lot of the "Silent members" of this group would also agree but not express their opinion as it goes against the general opinion seemingly. Personally, while I don't like the idea of them owning the club, they would be more of a shadow that you would hopefully forget about in time. (Not completely) They don't need our money and we don't need their's. We just need to have the ability to use our own self generated money for the club, rather than being used to pay off debt and dividends to the current owners.
I have basically went the long way around saying that I agree that it is probably the best case scenario at this point. I would hope that a better scenario plays out that I can't think of but that seem's impossible given the value of the club itself.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,680
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The more I think about it, the more I cannot see a reasonable outcome to this matter.

It has been discussed to death already but nobody is dumping £4bn on a football club with a ROI of circa £20m/annum.

Someone might have a leveraged buyout but I suspect that this might get vetoed by the government in this day and age.

i personally don’t want an oil state anywhere near our ownership.

As a best case scenario, it might be best if the Glazers were to agree to pay off the debt and remain as the owners.

At least we can then run as a debt-free business and live off our revenue streams like any decent club should
Wouldn’t paying off the debt any quicker than they are already make it difficult for the club to balance the books? Never mind making the sort of investment in the squad that fans are looking for.
 

redmanx

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
602
tick. Naïveté
If we were winning we wouldn’t care &
Praise the Glazers. Two for the price of one.

Business is business. It was a hostile takeover so suck it up, legacy fans. (Adjust mask)

Business is business. Naïveté. Yes you are on a roll, mr hefty turnover man.

But let’s insert some “reality”... despondency #2

The people who went over the top and injured police were wrong. On that we agree. The Elephant in the room is you seeing fans as gnats, against all powerful owners against whom resistance is futile.
While I would be certainly behind any peaceful protest this clearly wasn't one and was probably never intended to be, and the injury to the copper and the damage caused is intolerable. This protest will not get rid of the Glazers but, if the FA dock us points and we fail to qualify for the CL it might well persuade some players to go and others not to come; Bruno had already stated that he wants to win trophies, will he be happy without top flight European football next season? Without CL football next season Paul Pogba will definitely go this summer, and its not outside the realm of possibility that Rashford and Greenwood might decide to seek more success elsewhere too. The likes of Kane, Grealish and Haarling will go to other teams and Manchester United will stagnate and wither. Maybe similar protests will force the Glazers out in time but at what cost? Most of us want them gone....but at any price?
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
4,132
I’m curious about what the most optimistic scenarios are from here on?

I didn’t want the Glazers to take over and it sickens me to see how much money they’ve taken out of the club for personal gain. What I’m struggling with is what plan B looks like? And what needs to fall into place for it to happen.

Could everyone who has a clear idea about what they hope will happen next write a few lines describing how this all pans out.

Yeah what IS plan B?

"Get the Glazers out" - But then what? Unlike Arsenal we do not have a tech giant who also is a boyhood fan of the club. One of the boyhood Manchester United fans, Sir Ian Ratcliffe who also happens to be the richest man in the UK wants nothing to do with the valuations of the clubs. And to quote the man himself: "United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest."

Just to make something very clear:

The clubs debt is there to stay. It serves a fiscal purpose in the sense that it reduces taxes and is used to fund operations. A potential buyer won't simply pay off the clubs debt. The new owner(s) will pay for a controliling stake of the company and that's it. Paying off the debt simply means giving away money. No one is going to give away hundreds of millions of pounds.

After a takeover a few things could potentially materialize: Outside investment into the club for favorirable or 0% interest rates. Potentially used to upgrade Old Trafford, replace the roof, whatever needs upgrading and modernizing. Developing the outside grounds, etc. Things that we are currently not doing. "Money to buy players" will not be gifted from new owners.

New ownership usually means investment into infrastructure if needed. What Manchester United needs is key personell that oversees transfers and operations.

Anyone who thinks that a new owner is going to come in and A) Clear the debt B) Buy Haaland, Rice, Sancho and Varane next summer C) Invest a massive amount of money into the club should probably tamper their expectations quite a bit.

The list of parties with a realistic interest in owning a huge Premier League club is very small. Some potential asian buyers, more Americans, and oil rich middle eastern investors who tend to be part of or tied in with the royal families.

Personally I think the most realistic option no one are speaking much about to take over the club is Jack Ma. Manchester United has a working relationship with Alibaba, and China remains a focusmarket. If the Glazers do want to sell, he'll probably be listening in.

50+1 just won't happen. It's not realistic with club values as massive as they have become. It's a nice idea on paper but we really should have gone that route in the 90s when it was financially possible.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
While I would be certainly behind any peaceful protest this clearly wasn't one and was probably never intended to be, and the injury to the copper and the damage caused is intolerable. This protest will not get rid of the Glazers but, if the FA dock us points and we fail to qualify for the CL it might well persuade some players to go and others not to come; Bruno had already stated that he wants to win trophies, will he be happy without top flight European football next season? Without CL football next season Paul Pogba will definitely go this summer, and its not outside the realm of possibility that Rashford and Greenwood might decide to seek more success elsewhere too. The likes of Kane, Grealish and Haarling will go to other teams and Manchester United will stagnate and wither. Maybe similar protests will force the Glazers out in time but at what cost? Most of us want them gone....but at any price?
Valid points. Start off point, I think the vast majority of fans were peaceful. Injury and and damage unacceptable, right. The whole question of short term success versus owners is of course a totally different matter. You seem a bit uncertain on this topic, saying in one sentence that the protests won't get them out, and in another that protests might succeed.

And yes, Ole has done well; yes Cavani, Bruno and Pogba beginning to click, that kind of attack force that we saw against Roma is gold dust, you don't get that kind of understanding every day by assembling expensive players. Yes, we have done well to be headed to second spot in the league and it appears a European final. So, do protests threaten project Ole? Yes. But so do crazy owners, with crazy schemes like ESL. Which would either of us take, if offered now? A: Relegation and Glazers Out (replaced by something better, say 50/50 ownership between Red Knights etc, and fans?). Or (B) a cup and a place in next years CL? Option A for me. Ideally in a context where the game is better regulated, maybe along German lines. Others, of course, might think differently.
 

Rightnr

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
3,570
That's going to do a lot of good, threatening them :lol:
You clearly have never been involved in negotiations if you think that's unusual.

The Glazers didn't engage United fans for 15 years until two weeks ago they wanted to go and create something that is against the fabric of the club and English football in general. Do you think you'll convince these people with smiles, songs and dances?

I honestly think some of you need to sit down and read up on history, across all causes and eras to get a bit of perspective.
 

K Stand Knut

Full Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,858
Location
Stretford End
Wouldn’t paying off the debt any quicker than they are already make it difficult for the club to balance the books? Never mind making the sort of investment in the squad that fans are looking for.
The suggestion wasn’t meant to be that the club pay off the debt using its own cash

I was suggesting that the Glazers pay off the debt themselves with their own cash and make us debt free.

Yes, if the club paid it off, it would cripple us but that isn’t what I mean at all
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,680
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The suggestion wasn’t meant to be that the club pay off the debt using its own cash

I was suggesting that the Glazers pay off the debt themselves with their own cash and make us debt free.

Yes, if the club paid it off, it would cripple us but that isn’t what I mean at all
They won’t ever do that. Absolutely no chance. That debt is irreversibly bundled into the business from their perspective. It’s a pain in the arse but it is what it is. We can’t turn back time.
 

K Stand Knut

Full Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,858
Location
Stretford End
They won’t ever do that. Absolutely no chance. That debt is irreversibly bundled into the business from their perspective. It’s a pain in the arse but it is what it is. We can’t turn back time.
I know that!!!

The thread asks for the best case outcome. That is my suggestion!!
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
You clearly have never been involved in negotiations if you think that's unusual.

The Glazers didn't engage United fans for 15 years until two weeks ago they wanted to go and create something that is against the fabric of the club and English football in general. Do you think you'll convince these people with smiles, songs and dances?

I honestly think some of you need to sit down and read up on history, across all causes and eras to get a bit of perspective.
That's wrong though. They didn't engage United fans because they wanted to go and create something. They created it first, spent years secretly building it, and ONLY ENGAGED when they were soundly rejected and publicly humiliated. And yes, fans (and others) did have something to do with that. It is an indication of them feeling the pressure that they were dragged kicking and screaming to engage. Joel must have felt so dirty! In my view that pressure was do do with worries about image, sponsorship, government regulation, and loss of revenue. So yes, smiles, songs and dances might have a role. Do what you can to get them out.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
They won’t ever do that. Absolutely no chance. That debt is irreversibly bundled into the business from their perspective. It’s a pain in the arse but it is what it is. We can’t turn back time.
Hm, hm. But what if the Premiership (backed by government legislation) instituted a rule. In order to compete, a club must hold a majority of its own voting rights. And what if UEFA and FIFA had the same rule. Then the Glazers would have to sell 25% shares or whatever to compete or be left behind. Interesting to game out what happens at that point.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
As to the debt- @Pogue Mahone I’m totally out of my depth here - know FA about corporate finance. Surely there are some in here who can make suggestions or do a decent Analysis?
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
5,657
Being completely honest why is it such a strange idea that the Glazers would sell?

If they can get £4 billion that’s a huge return on investment for them. With the Super League in doubt the maximum sale price is starting to level out. The FA are bringing in rules so these clubs cannot break away. Post COVID I expect sponsorship deals won’t increase in value. BT are trying to sell BT sports because their shareholders did not see value in the football packages they had purchased, suggesting they’re overpriced. The maximum level of revenues is levelling out.

Surely there are better investments for them now? The issue we have is finding a wealthier owner willing to spend £4b on the club, then provide the manager with funds, capital investment in the stadium and surrounding areas. There is only a couple of people on the planet with that sort of money. It’s not exactly easy.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
5,657
Wouldn’t paying off the debt any quicker than they are already make it difficult for the club to balance the books? Never mind making the sort of investment in the squad that fans are looking for.
I am assuming he meant to pay the debt off with their own money, not the clubs. Even if they had that sort of personal cash the chances of them doing that is pretty much nil.
 

MU655

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
540
I don't think the Glazers paying off the loan is a possible solution. The Glazers are, supposedly, worth $5bn. Most of that value will be in their holdings (Manutd, Tamp Bay etc.). It is highly doubtful they have the cash to pay $500m off.

They would have to sell shares in Manutd to pay off the debt, but how is that beneficial to them? They would be ceding further control and holdings in the club for zero return. Also, with fewer shares they will get less dividends. It is all costs to them with no real benefits. Selling the whole club is far more realistic, but that would also be very difficult.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
931
Being completely honest why is it such a strange idea that the Glazers would sell?

If they can get £4 billion that’s a huge return on investment for them. With the Super League in doubt the maximum sale price is starting to level out. The FA are bringing in rules so these clubs cannot break away. Post COVID I expect sponsorship deals won’t increase in value. BT are trying to sell BT sports because their shareholders did not see value in the football packages they had purchased, suggesting they’re overpriced. The maximum level of revenues is levelling out.

Surely there are better investments for them now? The issue we have is finding a wealthier owner willing to spend £4b on the club, then provide the manager with funds, capital investment in the stadium and surrounding areas. There is only a couple of people on the planet with that sort of money. It’s not exactly easy.
But we don't have to have a single person buy all £3-4b of the club. If the Glazers released their premium shares(the ones with voting rights) for sale, then they could reduce their stake in the club without needing a billionaire. The way they have it setup right now, is that even if someone came into and bought most of the publicly held shares, the Glazers would still have complete control.

As for the new ownership needing to invest, once the debt is cleared, we can afford to invest more than we have over the last decade simply from turnover, if we don't have to service this huge debt or pay quite as much out in dividends.

Ultimately we'd all probably want a situation where we are owned by someone with the best interests of the club at heart. That person does not have to put hundreds of millions into the club, they could even take some out of the club as long as the core fundementals are in good order and the future is secure.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
Yeah what IS plan B?

"Get the Glazers out" - But then what? Unlike Arsenal we do not have a tech giant who also is a boyhood fan of the club. One of the boyhood Manchester United fans, Sir Ian Ratcliffe who also happens to be the richest man in the UK wants nothing to do with the valuations of the clubs. And to quote the man himself: "United have spent an immense amount since Ferguson left and been poor, to put it mildly. Shockingly poor, to be honest."

Just to make something very clear:

The clubs debt is there to stay. It serves a fiscal purpose in the sense that it reduces taxes and is used to fund operations. A potential buyer won't simply pay off the clubs debt. The new owner(s) will pay for a controliling stake of the company and that's it. Paying off the debt simply means giving away money. No one is going to give away hundreds of millions of pounds.

After a takeover a few things could potentially materialize: Outside investment into the club for favorirable or 0% interest rates. Potentially used to upgrade Old Trafford, replace the roof, whatever needs upgrading and modernizing. Developing the outside grounds, etc. Things that we are currently not doing. "Money to buy players" will not be gifted from new owners.

New ownership usually means investment into infrastructure if needed. What Manchester United needs is key personell that oversees transfers and operations.

Anyone who thinks that a new owner is going to come in and A) Clear the debt B) Buy Haaland, Rice, Sancho and Varane next summer C) Invest a massive amount of money into the club should probably tamper their expectations quite a bit.

The list of parties with a realistic interest in owning a huge Premier League club is very small. Some potential asian buyers, more Americans, and oil rich middle eastern investors who tend to be part of or tied in with the royal families.

Personally I think the most realistic option no one are speaking much about to take over the club is Jack Ma. Manchester United has a working relationship with Alibaba, and China remains a focusmarket. If the Glazers do want to sell, he'll probably be listening in.

50+1 just won't happen. It's not realistic with club values as massive as they have become. It's a nice idea on paper but we really should have gone that route in the 90s when it was financially possible.
Forget about Jack. He won't be able to get his cash out of the country.
I am nominating a person who doesn't know how to read financial P&L, Balance Sheet --- a certain Mister Putin.
 

Isotope

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
17,176
Supports
Ole Ole Ole
The government to realize that their current regulation regarding Football Club ownership is a farce. The current regulation allows owners to do whatever the feck they want, even taking out United out of England if the want to.

Teams like Manchester United are part of the national heritage, and massive source of revenue to the country (tourism, income and sales taxes, etc.). Teams like Manchester United, also help putting England on the map in culturally favorable position. So does Premier League. The government surely need to protect their (and their citizen) interest first and foremost. So it's to their best interest to limit the ownership power.
 
Last edited:

cvb

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
38
Location
Boston, MA. Formerly Hyde.
Supports
City
My question is this: You want to get owners who don't take money out of the club, but rather owners who put money into the club...so that _______________________ what is filling the blank space here? I'm trying to bore down to the driving motivation underpinning your desire to replace the Glazers with less parasitic owners.