Would pressuring sponsors be more effective than protesting against the Glazers directly?

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
They've got to choose their bedfellows well. No pity on my part here.
Don't agree with trying to destroy the club just to be rid of the owners. Very short-sighted.
 

NinjaZombie

Punched the air when Liverpool beat City
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
8,531
What, ruin the prospects of us getting a decent sponsor?

Another brilliant idea from the Glazers out at any cost.
The way I see it, with the Glazers around, the club is dead anyway. Within the next 10-20 years, if they still own United, I'd be willing to bet the club will be in some version of an ESL style competition and I'll just be some old man watching old clips of "legacy" football on Youtube.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
The way I see it, with the Glazers around, the club is dead anyway. Within the next 10-20 years, if they still own United, I'd be willing to bet the club will be in some version of an ESL style competition and I'll just be some old man watching old clips of "legacy" football on Youtube.
Like any new owner wouldn't do that anyway.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
13,111
Don't agree with trying to destroy the club just to be rid of the owners. Very short-sighted.
Don't think it's a "trying to destroy" the club thing. You can speculate that no one will touch us after this, as I can speculate that there's no chance of that.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
Don't think it's a "trying to destroy" the club thing. You can speculate that no one will touch us after this, as I can speculate that there's no chance of that.
Trying to get sponsors to pull out, thereby reducing our income massively, and possibly reducing any chance of getting future sponsors sounds suspiciously like trying to ruin the club to me.
 

christy87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
5,750
Location
Chelsea manager soccermanager
Supports
Dipping tea in toast
Trying to get sponsors to pull out, thereby reducing our income massively, and possibly reducing any chance of getting future sponsors sounds suspiciously like trying to ruin the club to me.
It could ruin not just the club but the league the champions league, if sponsors think us fans are to volatil to deal with, which could work in our favour with the other clubs pressuring them to sell up before they feck the whole thing for everyone.
 

UnitedFan93

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
328
Personally, I think those targeting innocent sponsors are the scum, imo.
Why?

The entire football industry is built on the fans. No fans = no revenue. The fans have every right to express their views, especially when companies are doing business with dodgy owners just to get exposure to the fanbase.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
Why?

The entire football industry is built on the fans. No fans = no revenue. The fans have every right to express their views, especially when companies are doing business with dodgy owners just to get exposure to the fanbase.
As long as none of them moan about Ole out, new players, money for transfers etc when the club is going down the drain.
 

NinjaZombie

Punched the air when Liverpool beat City
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
8,531
Like any new owner wouldn't do that anyway.
I've not bought a kit or watched a game through legit ways for a few years now. I'd buy a new kit every season and subscribe to whoever shows our games if the Glazers are gone and something like 50+1 is introduced to the club.

Big if though. Looks very unlikely to happen.
 

UnitedFan93

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
328
As long as none of them moan about Ole out, new players, money for transfers etc when the club is going down the drain.
The club has been going down the drain regardless, world record sponsorships or not. The key is getting the Glazers out rather than worrying about transfers. I'll take United in League 2 without the Glazers over what we are seeing now.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
26,391
Location
Ginseng Strip
Brilliant idea.

Those of you saying this will cripple us financially - that's the point! The Glazers clearly won't engage with the fans, nor do they seem to care about the outrage they've caused, the only way to scare these parasites is to affect their bottom line. Strive towards making the ownership for them completely untenable.

And to those saying this will permanently cripple us even in a post-Glazer climate - we're a huge global footballing name with reportedly a billion fans, you really think we won't have sponsors come back in a remedied atmosphere?
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,502
So if it doesn't work short term you aren't willing to consider it?

Seems like long term you are destined to fail with that attitude. You are naive if you think they will just up and leave after a few protests.

We have had these owners for 16 years since 2005. I think we need to start thinking 4 years ahead if required. So yes, boycotting or influencing sponsors is a perfectly viable strategy.
2005 says hi.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,801
Location
manchester
They were agrressive taking us over, not batted an eyelid at our demise. People think they will walk away when we are on top?
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
The club has been going down the drain regardless, world record sponsorships or not. The key is getting the Glazers out rather than worrying about transfers. I'll take United in League 2 without the Glazers over what we are seeing now.
The club has stated looking up the last couple or so years.

Seeing us in League 2 just to be rid of the Glazers is pathetic.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
Brilliant idea.

Those of you saying this will cripple us financially - that's the point! The Glazers clearly won't engage with the fans, nor do they seem to care about the outrage they've caused, the only way to scare these parasites is to affect their bottom line. Strive towards making the ownership for them completely untenable.

And to those saying this will permanently cripple us even in a post-Glazer climate - we're a huge global footballing name with reportedly a billion fans, you really think we won't have sponsors come back in a remedied atmosphere?
Which is fecking stupid, it's cutting your nose off to spite your face.

There's no guarantee new owners will be better, they'll probably be worse and any potential sponsors will think twice in case some "supporters" decide to kick off again.

I get that you're prepared to damage the club to get what you want, I'm not.
 

Exiust

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
6
And to those saying this will permanently cripple us even in a post-Glazer climate - we're a huge global footballing name with reportedly a billion fans, you really think we won't have sponsors come back in a remedied atmosphere?
Why would they?
They will need to have some guarantee that we actually like the new owners... . So that will take years.

Also whose is going to buy a club for couple billion where fans want to plummet the value if they don't like you. Especially since we are second in the league, in a European final and finally have a good young squad that can challenge for a couple years. I mean if fans under those conditions want you gone, you are probably going to think twice to buy that club.
 

Paxi

Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
22,447
Pillaged? :lol:
What do you think they’ve done? How much money was taken out in dividends and how much money was paid out in interest to the debt they saddled us with?

You’re on ignore before I get banned. I actually find you reprehensible.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
What do you think they’ve done? How much money was taken out in dividends and how much money was paid out in interest to the debt they saddled us with?

You’re on ignore before I get banned. I actually find you reprehensible.
Good, because you and others who want to seriously damage the club I've supported for over 50 years can stick your stupid ideas where the sun don't shine.

Bye.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
13,144
:lol:

The global fanbase couldn't fecking care less
I don't think that's true.

I've lived in the middle east, Africa and Singapore (as well as England and obviously Ireland), and I've met fans in each of those places who love the club and care deeply about it's issues.

One of the most fanatical Glazer Out fans I've ever met is a Singaporean.
 

UnitedFan93

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
328
The club has stated looking up the last couple or so years.

Seeing us in League 2 just to be rid of the Glazers is pathetic.
We've improved, yes, but we're still a million miles off winning the big trophies. What tends to happen after we finish 2nd is a very underwhelming transfer window, where the Glazers tighten the purse and all progress is lost. It will be interesting this summer to see how ambitious the club wants to be. What is pretty certain is that the Glazers will continue to find creative ways to take money out of the club.

The club is rotten to the core. I know Liverpool fans were upset with FSG over the super league but they are in different league to the Glazers. Look at how FSG sold a stake in Liverpool to cover losses during the pandemic compared to the Glazers taking on more debt. We're finished under the Glazers, completely finished.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,502
I don't think that's true.

I've lived in the middle east, Africa and Singapore (as well as England and obviously Ireland), and I've met fans in each of those places who love the club and care deeply about it's issues.

One of the most fanatical Glazer Out fans I've ever met is a Singaporean.
Does it really matter?

Fact is that all of this was tried when they initially took over the club, sadly it was an utter failure.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
26,391
Location
Ginseng Strip
Which is fecking stupid, it's cutting your nose off to spite your face.

There's no guarantee new owners will be better, they'll probably be worse and any potential sponsors will think twice in case some "supporters" decide to kick off again.

I get that you're prepared to damage the club to get what you want, I'm not.
Based on what exactly? If we do end up forcing the Glazers out then it would set a precedent that would hopefully deter any future owner who means to run the club as the Glazers have - a cash cow for which they shamelessly riddle it with debt as they take billions out of it. You don't see PSG, City and Chelsea fans wanting to force their owners out and for good reason too, United fans won't take similar drastic action if the club is at the very at least allowed to use its own revenue to invest in the club instead of siphoning it off for huge interest payments to pay off huge loans, all the while paying off the same owners in dividends.

The club is already damaged. We've gone from being debt free to still being half a billion in debt, even 16 years after the take over. Old Trafford is an ailing relic devoid of investment, our facilities and club infrastructure is a joke compared to what's happening at the East side of Manchester, and that's not even going into how these scumbags even had the audacity to try and kill our game with their disgraceful spearheading of the ESL initiative.

If you're willing to passively sit by and put up with the status quo then its you who's willing to damage the club going forward.
 

laughtersassassin

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
4,218
sorry and i am no fan of the glazers but they took over in 2005 and in fact we were the best team in the world afterwards in 2008. and we are not too far away now. also its a myth that there is not enough money made avalable for the team. we invested enough in the last years but only since ole the money is well spent. so in fact i can see us geting to the top again under the glazers also.
of course i would be glad if we had owners who cared more for the club and not the business but thats a naive wish. there are only two types of owners left nowadays - business men and rich people that use their club as their toys.
We had Sir Alex. Simple as.

They did their best to ensure we wouldn't stay there. Everyone could see that. Sell Ronaldo don't replace him.

Fergie could literally never sign a Midfielder. All the No value in market shite. We had a Brilliant base before the Glazers took over.

Now we have to build something which is impossible with them.

We might fluke something once every decade or so but that's best case scenario. Under these we will always fall right back down to earth very very quickly.

They are pretty much as bad as it gets. The sight of them actually sickens me.
 
Last edited:

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
26,391
Location
Ginseng Strip
Why would they?
They will need to have some guarantee that we actually like the new owners... . So that will take years.

Also whose is going to buy a club for couple billion where fans want to plummet the value if they don't like you. Especially since we are second in the league, in a European final and finally have a good young squad that can challenge for a couple years. I mean if fans under those conditions want you gone, you are probably going to think twice to buy that club.
As I've said in my previous reply - I think any prospective owner wouldn't be as naive as to think they'd be able to run the club as the Glazers have and expect a smooth ride of it. If we had ownership similar to that of PSG and City then I'd almost guarantee there'd be little to no outrage from the fanbase (assuming they don't do something like rename Old Trafford after a middle eastern airline or something similar). I'd wager all fans really want is an ownership that at at the very least allows what's already a very lucrative club to invest in itself, not cripple it with debts, interest repayments and push it towards a US style franchise approach to sports.
 

christy87

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
5,750
Location
Chelsea manager soccermanager
Supports
Dipping tea in toast
Maybe we should target the FA, UEFA and FIFA’s sponsors while we are at it if we are going to hurt we might as well as hurt the lot to bring about change.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
1,659
Based on what exactly? If we do end up forcing the Glazers out then it would set a precedent that would hopefully deter any future owner who means to run the club as the Glazers have - a cash cow for which they shamelessly riddle it with debt as they take billions out of it. You don't see PSG, City and Chelsea fans wanting to force their owners out and for good reason too, United fans won't take similar drastic action if the club is at the very at least allowed to use its own revenue to invest in the club instead of siphoning it off for huge interest payments to pay off huge loans, all the while paying off the same owners in dividends.

The club is already damaged. We've gone from being debt free to still being half a billion in debt, even 16 years after the take over. Old Trafford is an ailing relic devoid of investment, our facilities and club infrastructure is a joke compared to what's happening at the East side of Manchester, and that's not even going into how these scumbags even had the audacity to try and kill our game with their disgraceful spearheading of the ESL initiative.

If you're willing to passively sit by and put up with the status quo then its you who's willing to damage the club going forward.
Oh come on, be realistic. Who in their right mind is going to fork out £4bn, probably with loans that make the Glazers' one look like pocket change and not expect a healthy return on their investment.

Of course City/Chelsea/PSG don't want their oil murderers kicked out, why would they? They've turned them from non-entities to top[ teams with the £billions of blood money they've poured in. Is that what we want, to be a plaything of a murderous arab regime? Because it's likely to be that or someone that will make the Glazers look benevolent by comparison.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,332
Location
Hell on Earth
Don't agree with trying to destroy the club just to be rid of the owners. Very short-sighted.
This. We may land up like Leeds and stuck in the wilderness for a decade or two. Might as well burn down OT -- that will show them!

Direct action means targeting the Glazers themselves. That has an immediate impact. Create a situation where they feel uncomfortable -- both personally and financially in FL. Dig up dirt on them and then it would affect their personal brand and ultimately business.
Have everyone stalk them like media hawks and badger them. They have always enjoyed their remote relationship with United and their fans. We bring it to their doorstep. They will hate their peace & quiet disrupted and get so sick of the whole thing.

Like most things, it takes two hands to clap. Who would buy it after all the crap that entails being a Manchester United owner? (Assuming that everyone agrees that the 50+1 is dead in the water and as likely as me marrying a supermodel.)
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,332
Location
Hell on Earth
Oh come on, be realistic. Who in their right mind is going to fork out £4bn, probably with loans that make the Glazers' one look like pocket change and not expect a healthy return on their investment.

Of course City/Chelsea/PSG don't want their oil murderers kicked out, why would they? They've turned them from non-entities to top[ teams with the £billions of blood money they've poured in. Is that what we want, to be a plaything of a murderous arab regime? Because it's likely to be that or someone that will make the Glazers look benevolent by comparison.
£4B -- what sort of returns would an owner expect? Its not exactly US T-bonds so the risk /reward has to be much higher -- say 5-10% per annum? How much of that will be stripped off our expenses incl transfer budget?
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
2,050
We are observing some idiots coming up with childish scheme to achieve their selfish objective. Things can be very simple, find 4B and pay them up. How to find 4B is probably easier to these people.
 

shahzy

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
688
100%. Sponsors are there because the fans are there. This is the basic fundamental idea of every sponsorship. You take the fans away or get the fans to actively turn against the sponsor (Same effect), the sponsorship becomes worthless to the outside company and they either do 1 of two things. 1) pull out immediately as they gain no benefit or actively get their brand image harmed or 2) Renegotiate for future deals and say something along the lines of 'we will not be renewing the contract once this current one is up'

If you believe you cant effect anything then you aren't really thinking at the scale of things required to cause this. Just remember this parasite cnuts get the balance sheet given to them every quarter. They only care about the number at the bottom. If that number starts dwindling that's when they will start thinking about how its becoming a losing business for them and jump ship. This was always the only way this was going to end. They were never going to sell by building up a brand. They would only sell after its become obvious that it had become a losing business.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
660
The irony of this bloke commenting "short sighted" isn't lost on anyone hopefully
Indeed nothing more long sighted than risking the clubs long term financial success based on an assumption we’ll be bought by a generous billionaire that we presumably plan to pull from someone’s ass
 

Exiust

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
6
£4B -- what sort of returns would an owner expect? Its not exactly US T-bonds so the risk /reward has to be much higher -- say 5-10% per annum? How much of that will be stripped off our expenses incl transfer budget?
The Glazers ownership currently costs us 40 million a year. It is around 30 million in dividends and 20 million in interest payments which is 50 million I know, but without the debt the clubs taxation would be higher so you end up with 40 million in practical terms (so the debt currently costs actually 10 million a year for all practical purposes, say what you will about Woodward but he does know how to do finances).

So with a 4 billion valuation, 40 million a year would give the new owners a 1% return per annum. This would put them on par with the Glazers, but since people already think this is too much... they want the new owners to even have a lower return on investment. Good luck finding an owner that is willing to do this. With 5% return per annum we would have no transfer budget left, with 10% per annum we would have no transfer budget and we would have to get rid of around 3 to 4 of our highest earning players. So the conclusion is that in financial terms under a new ownership we would most likely be worse off.

The only situation where we might be better off is when the buyer is a rich sugar daddy or an oil state that wants to buy the club as a vanity project. The chances of that happening are almost zero, since there are only 230 people in the world with a wealth of above 10 billion (which thus would require them to put 40% of their assets in the club, which is already an insane amount) and the only oil state that might buy us is the KSA (but that obviously comes with human rights problems and we wouldn't be able to make fun of City anymore).

As for protesting to make the value of the club lower, that's going to be a difficult process and you would have to hope that we lose matches and sell players. Arsenal is a mid table club for years, their squad is terrible and someone that would buy them still has to pay 2 billion... .
 
Last edited: