well yes that’s the issue isn’t it. instead of being able to spend 80m were relegated to 50m through no fault of the club. that’s the difference between a sancho or a diallo every year.
Would pressuring sponsors be more effective than protesting against the Glazers directly?
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
You really think the massive outlay combined with the demand of not skimming a dividend is going to make our imaginary buyer more likely to stump up the cash?
The PLC took dividends. Owners before skimmed off top.
At some point it needs to be addressed why some people want to take us back to an ownership structure that has never, ever existed
They'd still take out 50 if there's no debt. The way i see it they're only taking half of what is normal because they're paying interest.
Which is why we're still breaking record transfer fee every few years
so what is the reason people want the glazers out then?
Indeed it is. The problem though is that unless Saudis buy us, a new owner would do the same. Why would anyone spend north of 3 billion (probably 4 billion if they clean the debt), and then not take dividends? Bear in mind, that in general, the businesses that take dividends also increase their stock value, which would be the goal of some businessmen new owners.
As far as I can see it is either Saudis, or a consortium that would be very similar to Glazers (though they might hire someone who is better than Ed Woodward as CEO).
owning the club for the prestige and pride of having a club regularly aiming to win it all? not everything is about money.
does abramovich take a dividend? no he plows in money to make them competitive whenever needed.
Not for 4 billion. No one except Saudis would even think about it.
Abramovich bought Chelsea for a pittance (same for UAE buying City), and despite the massive money they have put there, the club's value has increased so much, that if they sell it today, they'll have gained money.
United is already so big (bigger than both we mentioned), that it would need a massive investment to buy it, and it is not a club that can do a 1.5x let alone the 5-10x Chelsea/City did.
Roman didn't buy Chelsea to make money directly from owning the club. He bought it for - let's just say - other reasons.
Hint: it wasn't because he loved Peter Bonetti as a kid.
As far as I know, Roman still hasn't made money - directly - from owning Chelsea.
Anyway - you want a Roman style owner? Someone who doesn't care about making money - directly - from owning the club? That would be the Saudis, then.
You likely won't find any kind of other individual owner or consortium interested in buying a football club at - what - anywhere north of 3bn that won't care about direct profit.
Football clubs don't generate that much profit - they're extremely costly to run.
Last edited:
this is the bigger issue though isn’t it? we either get somebody rich enough to clear the debt and not worry about taking money out of the club, or just pass it onto another glazer who will still milk the club as a business venture. what’s the difference?
Will we be happy with more of the same as long as it’s not the glazers?
Obviously the ideal owner is somebody as rich as abramovich who’s squeaky clean, but how many of them exist? whoever can afford united right now is probably a bit dodgy in some way.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The Glazers should be relieved people are focusing their energies into pointlessly giving bad rating to Team Viewer on Trust pilot. Presumably once we’ve all done that we can stay up and wait for Coca Cola to fold given their poor rating on same site
Honestly it’s like the Glazers have invented this as an idea to keep fans distracted.
Honestly it’s like the Glazers have invented this as an idea to keep fans distracted.
I would say this is about 3% as clever as you think it is.
You really think ANYONE gives a shit that someone’s convinced a bunch of United fans for some unknown reason that poor ratings on Trust Pilot matter?
It isn’t even a consumerable where such things might make a difference (although look up the rating of many well known brands to see it don’t).
The ironic thing being far more people have now heard of TeamViewer. They must be really cut up about that.
I think the fact you used Coca Cola as an example for why an online software company wouldn't care about reviews on an online, tech-centric review platform means I stopped respecting your opinion about a half hour ago.
Indeed. However the hope is that the new consortium would take less money out of the club (possible but not sure how likely) and as importantly run the club better (should be easy, considering that Ed sucked).
Companies can get negative reviews removed if they are in bad faith or as part of a coordinated attack (usually by rival organisations). They rarely do though as corporations know they don’t matter
The metrics TeamViewer will use is that their name has got more attention in the press than arguably at any time in its history, social media followers have increased dramatically, mentions of their brand on Twitter are at an all time high.
I kind of get the logic behind targeting sponsors for boycotts but this is bordering on moronic and counterproductive.
The metrics TeamViewer will use is that their name has got more attention in the press than arguably at any time in its history, social media followers have increased dramatically, mentions of their brand on Twitter are at an all time high.
I kind of get the logic behind targeting sponsors for boycotts but this is bordering on moronic and counterproductive.
No, I just don't believe in harming the club either directly or through sponsors is a good idea.
You have to be a troll. Come on, mods.
I would say that anyone advocatng harm to the club or an innocent sponsor is the troll. Maybe the mods should weed out those posters wishing that?
Of course it's short-sighted. The long view would mean any potential future sponsors would be extremely wary of sponsoring United in case something like this happens again. Why can't people see this?
How much did Chelsea cost Abramovich? The money he puts in is in the form of loans, is it not?
If you really think someone is going to splurge £3bn or £4bn and not take anything out then I pity you.
How in Hell will someone paying around £4bn not take more money? That's ridiculous to even think (unless they're the Saudi Murderer or maybe Chinese).
What's the value got to do with anything?
If Roman bought Chelsea now for 4bn he wouldn't be taking a dividend either. Not everybody wants to use the club to finance their personal lives.
The Glazers lucked into buying a club they couldn't really afford, used the clubs own money to pay for itself and continue to pay them profits. Pathetic.
What's pathetic is the lack of thought being put into this.
You want someone like Abramovich to own United? Welcome to the Saudi Murderer.
No business or businessman is going to have £4bn lying around so how do you expect them to buy us?
I think that most fans would expect a buyer to take something out. Billionaires are unlikely to invest without serious investment. That is why it is crucial, right now, that we push any and all relevant authorities to consider a more permanent barrier to unilateral moves by owners to make drastic and permanent changes to the way our football institutions function.
That means pressuring sponsors, politicians and the club. It will be difficult, it will take a long time, and it may fail. But none of that is good reason to stop trying if you care as much as the fans do about protecting the club and the city of Manchester.
You raise some good points about difficulties we will face, but every one of your posts that I have read has been patronising as hell towards fans who are trying to work out the best way to protect the club they love, without offering any alternatives.
Stop calling people pathetic and stupid because they haven't solved the riddle of the fecked up system of football club ownership in this country over the last 4 days. It makes you sound like you don't want people to try and change things.
The so-called fans I've replied to are either Glazers Out at all costs or those who are happy to destroy the club to be rid of them.
None of those posters and, indeed, the vast majority of other posters seem at all concerned with the consequences. Their blind hatred is just that. What is needed is level-headed thinking with a clear goal to aim for. We haven't seen that, yet.
What are the consequences that you are concerned about? I think most of the fans anticipate that, to get rid of the Glazers, we will likely need to take action that damages our league position, and are willing to deal with those consequences. To me, if Manchester United were to leave and join a super league, they would stop being Manchester United, and I would no longer support them. And that is clearly still the Glazers' goal. So I don't see the threat of points deductions or other consequences as worse than the consequences of doing nothing. And it's not blind hatred, it's a greater understanding of the Glazers' plans for us.
The clear goal articulated by people from the protest was to demonstrate the strength of feeling against Manchester United's ownership to the ownership, the PL, the government and the sponsors. The letter that you criticise should be viewed as an initial statement of intent and demands. The Glazers can choose to ignore it, and see the supporters' argument strengthened, or they can enter into a dialogue about how to assuage fan fears about the future of the club. If they ignore it then that is them pushing conflict with the fans by ignoring engagement.
If they do that then it will be time for more protests. That's how protests work. We will likely only be successful if we are incredibly resilient, but we don't really have another option.
Owners in the United States under the American "Franchise Closed System" have been forced to sell. Donald Sterling was banned from the league and forced to sell his NBA Clippers. Bob McNair, NFL owner of the Texas got in a controversy and probably would have been forced to sell but he died and team was sold. Jerry Richardson, NFL Carolina Panthers was also involved in a controversy and was forced to sell.
I think it's only fair that the imperialistic American Glazer's be forced to sell for trying to destroy British and European culture with their attempted Super League coup d'e tat.
Its a disease. On the other hand, give me a glass of shandy and I will propose burning down OT.
Teamviewer is a rubbish company anyhow so unsettling them to unsettle the Glazers seems like a flawless plan.
It would be an interesting experiment to see just how much impact the "legacy fans" have on the clubs commercial value, beyond the obvious in terms of season tickets, tv subscriptions and shirt sales. Relative to all the fans in these growing markets elsewhere.
It would be an interesting experiment to see just how much impact the "legacy fans" have on the clubs commercial value, beyond the obvious in terms of season tickets, tv subscriptions and shirt sales. Relative to all the fans in these growing markets elsewhere.
Sponsorships is more down to brand awareness, companies want consumers to be aware of their brand.
What do we think has happened to TeamViewers brand awareness this week?
You know it’s true by how angry and offended people get when you point this out.
What do we think has happened to TeamViewers brand awareness this week?
You know it’s true by how angry and offended people get when you point this out.
Agree. Attack the money, not the men. That's what they care about.
I disagree with attacking sponsors. They're innocent.
Its like you're having a beef with Don Corleone, and you're attacking the bakery that pays them protection.
If you want to show message, buy the ticket, then don't attend the match. Or wear all black shirt inside the stadium to show you're mourning etc.
Its like you're having a beef with Don Corleone, and you're attacking the bakery that pays them protection.
If you want to show message, buy the ticket, then don't attend the match. Or wear all black shirt inside the stadium to show you're mourning etc.
Inappropriate Content
Sensational breaking news, they aren't complete retards.
There really needs to be a slightly more realistic perspective on these things. Ofcourse they're going to fecking monitor the situation, this doesn't translate into anyone being worried, simply that they're doing their fecking job
Sponsors, We decide when you get paid
Do we want to pressure the Glazers to leave the club, or do we just want to tell the world we are sad? You've suggested 2 powerful ways to allow the Glazers to ignore us without losing any sleep or money. Why would they care what colour shirt we are wearing, or how many people used the tickets they bought? They never go to the stadium anyway! Those are 2 ways that fans could sacrifice while not achieving anything.
Sponsors sign deals with United because they look at United's fan base and see a way of making loads of money off us. Even if you believe absolutely in market economics, consumer power comes from our ability to pressure brands and sponsors to change policy through collective action. Sponsors are always legitimate targets of collective action.
We want to make a statement dont we?
What's more of a statement?
75k people wearing full black clothing, blackened out the stadium for everyone in the world with TV to see?
Or putting a review on some internet app site where only tech savy people read, I doubt even tech savvy people who used Team Viewer sees it.
besides, your review is mostly moot, they'll be pruned out, and those that used Team Viewers won't be discouraged because they know it's just one of those boycotts.
Black shirts might be visually impressive, but the Glazers won't care one bit. Agree that writing a bad internet review for a sponsor will also make no difference. Best way to challenge sponsors and unsettle the Glazers is to continue disrupting the match-day experience.
A few years ago, in abject disgust at how Mike Ashley was running their club, 30000 Newcastle fans walked out part-way through a game. Was that an impressive message of solidarity and anger at the club's ownership. Hell yes! Did it convince Ashley to change how he runs the club? Not at all.
For a protest to be successful it has to disrupt and undermine the product that Manchester United are selling. That means more match-day disruptions.