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

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,437
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
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.
Sponsorship revenue always gone up. It has been steadily going up from the day they took over United.

So whatever strange concept of "hit them where it hurts" is a fairy tale, so far nothing happens, and United remains one of the biggest brand in football. We were awe strucked when Nike signs a 75m sponsorship deals with us which is pretty big back then, peanuts these days. Team Viewer alone pays us much much more for using their brand on our shirt.

So... good luck with that.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,464
It seems the Glazers won't sell and as much as people can protest at the ground and cause disruption, how effective will it actually be?

However would indirect action be more effective, such as putting pressure on Adidas and the like to help force the Glazers out.

The sponsors bring in tons of cash and if they threaten to pull out, then that could force the Glazers to sell.

I don't know what the best way to do this is beyond a simple boycott or certain companies.

So, silly idea or credible?
The question is if you want to pressure the owners by hurting the club's finances. If you do, that comes at a cost to things you want (transfer funds, stadium investment etc), whether you succeed in influencing the owners or not. Pros and cons.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,464
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... .
I suppose you could hope for someone who understands that the long-term financial potential of the club depends directly on success on the pitch, and who consequently sees the need to invest wisely to that end rather than seek a regular financial benefit through dividends irrespective of that. That's more or less how things have gone down at Liverpool, as far as I understand. I wouldn't mind fundamentally that there's dividends paid, as long as sporting needs are put first.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
2,111
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
Going after sponsors isn't something new, it just rarely works.
Actually it does. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it never works, the most recent examples are...

#stophateforprofit where advertisers on Facebook were targetted over the summer last year. Lots of big brands agreed to suspend paid adverts on FB, Coca Cola, Adidas, Sony, Puma, Ford and Lego were just a few. The result was that within a few weeks FB's share price had dropped 8%, they started removing pages from the Boogaloo movement and QAnon it made international headlines and FB also finally agreed to remove Holocaust denying content. That's a huge success given that just weeks before Zuckerberg had defended not reoving Trump's post "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Brunei tried to pass a law imposing the death penalty for anal sex and rape. Boycott's were called on an international chain of hotels owned by the Sultan, JP Morgan annouced they would stop using them as did Deutsche Bank and others the laws were dropped.

  • Others include Burberry stopping fur and joining other big fashion brands after long running boycotts pushed by PETA.
  • Ivanka Trump's clothing brand was closed after sales dropped by 45% because people boycotted it online to protest against her links with her father's presidency.
  • The NRA was dropped by lots of big companies after the Parklands shooting eg Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Hertz, Budget, Avis, Best Western and Wyndham Hotels all stated that they would no longer offer discounts or other special offers for NRA members. The insurer Chubb dropped cover for NRA Carry Guard insurance. Enterprise Rent–A–Car announced that is was severing ties. First National Bank of Omaha stated that it would end a Visa credit card it offered with NRA branding.
Governments are terrified of it as shown by the UK government going to court to try and legislate a ban on councils from being able to divesting their pension funds from companies that contributed to climate change or were involved in human right's issues. The court sided with the councils.

The list goes on and on. If you want to hurt someone hit their income, in the age of social media the vast majority of companies are terrified of viral negative campaigns against them. You want to hurt the Glazers, then the OP is spot on target the sponsors.
 

Lee565

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
2,264
I have seen the reports of our next shirt sponsor getting hit with bad reviews on trust pilot by united fans, this is a small step in the right direction and would encourage we did the same with every brand sponsoring us.
 

talking robot

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
1,680
Location
on your nerves
I have seen the reports of our next shirt sponsor getting hit with bad reviews on trust pilot by united fans, this is a small step in the right direction and would encourage we did the same with every brand sponsoring us.
This should be promoted and organized properly. It's the most efficient way to get them out, and an online campaign targeting reviews for sponsors could involve the global fan base.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
Actually it does. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it never works, the most recent examples are...

#stophateforprofit where advertisers on Facebook were targetted over the summer last year. Lots of big brands agreed to suspend paid adverts on FB, Coca Cola, Adidas, Sony, Puma, Ford and Lego were just a few. The result was that within a few weeks FB's share price had dropped 8%, they started removing pages from the Boogaloo movement and QAnon it made international headlines and FB also finally agreed to remove Holocaust denying content. That's a huge success given that just weeks before Zuckerberg had defended not reoving Trump's post "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Brunei tried to pass a law imposing the death penalty for anal sex and rape. Boycott's were called on an international chain of hotels owned by the Sultan, JP Morgan annouced they would stop using them as did Deutsche Bank and others the laws were dropped.

  • Others include Burberry stopping fur and joining other big fashion brands after long running boycotts pushed by PETA.
  • Ivanka Trump's clothing brand was closed after sales dropped by 45% because people boycotted it online to protest against her links with her father's presidency.
  • The NRA was dropped by lots of big companies after the Parklands shooting eg Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Hertz, Budget, Avis, Best Western and Wyndham Hotels all stated that they would no longer offer discounts or other special offers for NRA members. The insurer Chubb dropped cover for NRA Carry Guard insurance. Enterprise Rent–A–Car announced that is was severing ties. First National Bank of Omaha stated that it would end a Visa credit card it offered with NRA branding.
Governments are terrified of it as shown by the UK government going to court to try and legislate a ban on councils from being able to divesting their pension funds from companies that contributed to climate change or were involved in human right's issues. The court sided with the councils.

The list goes on and on. If you want to hurt someone hit their income, in the age of social media the vast majority of companies are terrified of viral negative campaigns against them. You want to hurt the Glazers, then the OP is spot on target the sponsors.
I see that i was completely in the wrong when i assumed that no one would be thick enough to assume it was made as a general statement, and not the obvious reference to football clubs and sponsors which is what we're actually debating here.

Adidas signed a 10-year contract that runs out in 2025, potentially worth £750 million. They generally sell 1.7mill+ United kits a year, fecking dwarfing the amount of fans unhappy with the Glazers with roughly 1,65mill+...

But who cares, Ivanka Trump's clothing brand (:lol::lol::lol:) got binned because of boycots related to Trumps presidency. Oh, and there were political boycots related to Brunei trying to implement the death law for anal sex and rape.

I fail to see the connecting dots here.
 

Murder on Zidane's Floor

You'd better not kill Giroud
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
9,769
Ogden's pushing this too and the LUHG crew claim to be on it.

Got derided for this as I opposed the breaking into the stadium.

If you stop giving them what gives them money, our viewership, they cannot justify the big money they charge sponsors, doubly so if every sponsor is being boycotted.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
Ogden's pushing this too and the LUHG crew claim to be on it.

Ogden is such a fecking tool.

First of all. The amount of fans boycotting and protesting are outnumbered, but a shitload, by people who couldn't be less bothered. Adidas sells 1.7mill+ United kits on a yearly basis, how many % of that revenue is from supporters that are going to be boycotting sponsors, feck all? The root cause isn't perceived as a PR issue, it's greedy fecking owners and football supporters being unhappy with the club owners/players/whatnot is pretty fecking standard.

Secondly, how the feck does he imagine they'll start "pulling out"? Adidas has what, 4,5 years remaining on their £750mill contract. There's no scenario where an exit doesn't compensate us with a large % of the remaining fee + we'll be free to negotiate a new contract, and it's not like we'll suddenly be without a kit. Should we just hurry up and go after Nike, Puma, New Balance and whatnot before they start sniffing?

Review bombing doesn't last forever.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
Without social media and we had about a tenth of the commercial partnerships we do now.
So, essentially, it'll be easier to spread the word but then much more difficult to put an actual dent in the sponsor deals because:
a) There's a fecking shitload of them, all on long contracts
b) There's a fecking shitload of them that are happy to sign on
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,092
Location
Not far enough
I suppose you could hope for someone who understands that the long-term financial potential of the club depends directly on success on the pitch, and who consequently sees the need to invest wisely to that end rather than seek a regular financial benefit through dividends irrespective of that. That's more or less how things have gone down at Liverpool, as far as I understand. I wouldn't mind fundamentally that there's dividends paid, as long as sporting needs are put first.
Still wouldn't change the ROI expectations. If the club wins everything still wouldn't double the operating income nor would it allow for dividends of double the current size to be taken. The logic that most people seem to be ignoring is that a buyer needs to have an incentive. And that incentive is the polar opposite of what the protesting fans want.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
659
Ogden is such a fecking tool.

First of all. The amount of fans boycotting and protesting are outnumbered, but a shitload, by people who couldn't be less bothered. Adidas sells 1.7mill+ United kits on a yearly basis, how many % of that revenue is from supporters that are going to be boycotting sponsors, feck all? The root cause isn't perceived as a PR issue, it's greedy fecking owners and football supporters being unhappy with the club owners/players/whatnot is pretty fecking standard.

Secondly, how the feck does he imagine they'll start "pulling out"? Adidas has what, 4,5 years remaining on their £750mill contract. There's no scenario where an exit doesn't compensate us with a large % of the remaining fee + we'll be free to negotiate a new contract, and it's not like we'll suddenly be without a kit. Should we just hurry up and go after Nike, Puma, New Balance and whatnot before they start sniffing?

Review bombing doesn't last forever.
i think we’re back where we were years ago with sports writers trying to cover finance and commerce stories and being awful at it
 

Murder on Zidane's Floor

You'd better not kill Giroud
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
9,769
So, essentially, it'll be easier to spread the word but then much more difficult to put an actual dent in the sponsor deals because:
a) There's a fecking shitload of them, all on long contracts
b) There's a fecking shitload of them that are happy to sign on
If you've entered into a long contract with a company but the service or expectation radically changes, where being associated with the company is hurting other areas of your business, you would seek to break the agreement and take legal recourse to exit the contract.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
If you've entered into a long contract with a company but the service or expectation radically changes, where being associated with the company is hurting other areas of your business, you would seek to break the agreement and take legal recourse to exit the contract.
Good luck to Adidas arguing that a tiny band of Manchester United supporters is hurting business to the point that they have a get out of jail free card on a 10 year contract.

Not happening.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
1,464
Still wouldn't change the ROI expectations. If the club wins everything still wouldn't double the operating income nor would it allow for dividends of double the current size to be taken. The logic that most people seem to be ignoring is that a buyer needs to have an incentive. And that incentive is the polar opposite of what the protesting fans want.
I think that's an argument based on rather simplistic assumptions. There are other billionaire owners who do not take out dividends at all, and I don't think you're making any plausible argument why any other owner than the Glazers would necessarily take out twice the dividends they do.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,092
Location
Not far enough
I think that's an argument based on rather simplistic assumptions. There are other billionaire owners who do not take out dividends at all, and I don't think you're making any plausible argument why any other owner than the Glazers would necessarily take out twice the dividends they do.
Other owners have not bought clubs worth $4bn too. That's one very important difference. When they buy a club that appreciates in value as an asset, which they can use to extract commercial value, that's an entirely different proposition.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
2,111
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
I see that i was completely in the wrong when i assumed that no one would be thick enough to assume it was made as a general statement, and not the obvious reference to football clubs and sponsors which is what we're actually debating here.

Adidas signed a 10-year contract that runs out in 2025, potentially worth £750 million. They generally sell 1.7mill+ United kits a year, fecking dwarfing the amount of fans unhappy with the Glazers with roughly 1,65mill+...

But who cares, Ivanka Trump's clothing brand (:lol::lol::lol:) got binned because of boycots related to Trumps presidency. Oh, and there were political boycots related to Brunei trying to implement the death law for anal sex and rape.

I fail to see the connecting dots here.
Then don’t do anything to try and change anything and don’t bother complaining.
I think it’s a real shame when do many people are trying to make a difference and the first reply in thus thread is you saying don’t bother.
 

Glazers Out!

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
47
The key is to keep the protests going in England and then mobilize United's Asian and African brothers into the boycott and Glazer's Out movement.
Partner and communicate with the Man United Indonesia fan club, MU China, United Japan, United Ghana, Man Utd Nigeria, Man Utd Kenya, etc.

Joel Glazer and Avram Muffin Mullet Glazer don't care about the legacy fans and England fans because the Asian fan base alone would bring in the sponsorship revenue, not to mention the world wide fan base. But the Man United - Liverpool protest and game postponement could not be ignored around the world. Everyone saw that. And everyone now has some idea that the Glazer's are the problem.

Use that momentum to communicate and coordinate with these other countries fan bases. Sponsor's will not be happy and demand that the Glazer's step down.

Also boycott the sponsor's of the Glazer's Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the NFL. Fight the battle worldwide on two fronts. As the Glazer's empire crumbles, they will cut their losses and save the NFL Closed System Franchise team.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
Then don’t do anything to try and change anything and don’t bother complaining.
I think it’s a real shame when do many people are trying to make a difference and the first reply in thus thread is you saying don’t bother.
So the alternatives are either stupid or not doing anything at all?
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,800
Location
manchester
Good luck to Adidas arguing that a tiny band of Manchester United supporters is hurting business to the point that they have a get out of jail free card on a 10 year contract.

Not happening.
you didnt hear Adidas last week moaning about shirt sales then
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
So negative press clearly hurts business
We went from a reported 1.8mill in 2019, to 1.7mill in 2020. It coincided with a certain global pandemic.
In terms of 2021 and recent weeks/month of bad press, we won't know until the year is over.
 

talking robot

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
1,680
Location
on your nerves
I want to participate in review bombing sponsors to help force the Glazers out. Can someone direct me to a website which facilitates this (e.g. by listing club sponsors, and the optimal sites to provide my reviews on)?
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
85,758
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
it appears united fans caused vodaphone to back away from the club with the previous protests

To be fair Vodaphone already had a lot of negative press for their hostile takeover of Mannesmann, which was the largest hostile takeover in history. It makes sense that they wouldn't want to risk any additional reputational damage due to the protests against the Glazers in 2005. Easy decision for them.
 

shahzy

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
687
Sponsorship revenue always gone up. It has been steadily going up from the day they took over United.

So whatever strange concept of "hit them where it hurts" is a fairy tale, so far nothing happens, and United remains one of the biggest brand in football. We were awe strucked when Nike signs a 75m sponsorship deals with us which is pretty big back then, peanuts these days. Team Viewer alone pays us much much more for using their brand on our shirt.

So... good luck with that.
You've explained basic inflation. You haven't explained what removal or reduction of sponsorship money does in this era of inflation. Completely missing the point
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
44,097
Location
Munich
the issue is are we ready to accept more years of no success for them to be removed? it would probably take 5-6 years of this before they got panicked into selling.

They'll still take their money every year if it's there. do you think if there's 80m profit left over in a year, they'll be spending 80m on Sancho instead of lining their pockets? I don't.
To be fair, the amount of dividend they take has been constant, so if there is 80m profit, they'll take their 20m-25m dividend and reinvest the other. Which has been going on for some time now.

The problem is that dividends and interest payment adds up to around 50m for each year, which is a large sum of money.