Manchester United Teamtalk/Transfer/Gossip 23/24 - [New Thread Available]

Will I Am Not

Father Hernandez wrote: »

And another one..

https://twitter.com/yxngbaz/status/1388880380149837825?s=20

Lads in the General PL thread spinning that nonsense too :rolleyes:
It’s taken 15 years to go from that to what we seen today. You think Liverpool fans would be above all that if Hicks and Gillet were still f*cking them over 15 years later? Would they f*ck.

Hococop

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Lads in the General PL thread spinning that nonsense too :rolleyes:
It’s taken 15 years to go from that to what we seen today. You think Liverpool fans would be above all that if Hicks and Gillet were still f*cking them over 15 years later? Would they f*ck.

Did they only sell because they were screwed financially? I Remember they were close to administration

Will I Am Not

Hococop wrote: »

Did they only sell because they were screwed financially? I Remember they were close to administration

It’s a hypothetical situation. They were sh*t owners and Liverpool fans protested against them.

Lord TSC

https://twitter.com/mufcwesleyy/status/1388907310764933120

pjohnson

Lord TSC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mufcwesleyy/status/1388907310764933120

From a safety standpoint they couldnt be let out to them.

Thats one good thing security managed to do.

Lithium93_

pjohnson wrote: »

From a safety standpoint they couldnt be let out to them.

Thats one good thing security managed to do.

Would've made one hell of a picture/pictures to beam around the world, if the United players were let out and they did engage with the fans outside

Annabella1

Any chance Utd could get a points deduction
Certainly Liverpool getting handed.3 points must be on the cards

Sand

Annabella1 wrote: »

Any chance Utd could get a points deduction
Certainly Liverpool getting handed.3 points must be on the cards

It is very unlikely if the decision to postphone the game was unanimous (i.e. including police and local government). If the police and local government are saying the situation was unsafe to proceed then the club can hardly be punished for agreeing.

Talk of point deductions and forfeits are basically desperate Liverpool fans. Decent Liverpool fans support what happened today.

martingriff

Sand wrote: »

It is very unlikely if the decision to postphone the game was unanimous (i.e. including police and local government). If the police and local government are saying the situation was unsafe to proceed then the club can hardly be punished for agreeing.

Talk of point deductions and forfeits are basically desperate Liverpool fans. Decent Liverpool fans support what happened today.

Talks game totally postponed and Liverpool been handed 3 points aint going to happen. I look forward to SKY showing the game when it happens free to air as they support the fans so much!!!!!!!!!

Lithium93_

If Liverpool want those 3 points, they'll have to earn them, when the game is rescheduled.

Annabella1

Sand wrote: »

It is very unlikely if the decision to postphone the game was unanimous (i.e. including police and local government). If the police and local government are saying the situation was unsafe to proceed then the club can hardly be punished for agreeing.

Talk of point deductions and forfeits are basically desperate Liverpool fans. Decent Liverpool fans support what happened today.

I am a United fan - check my posts !
If I was the FA I would hand 3 points to the opposition and try to put an end to the unrest...
Just a different perspective

Lithium93_

Annabella1 wrote: »

I am a United fan - check my posts !
If I was the FA I would hand 3 points to the opposition and try to put an end to the unrest...
Just a different perspective

And if the FA did what your proposing, that would open another can of worms? What if what happened today, happened at another game?

jimmytwotimes 2013

Annabella1 wrote: »

I am a United fan - check my posts !
If I was the FA I would hand 3 points to the opposition and try to put an end to the unrest...
Just a different perspective

Reds turn up at City's ground til end of the season and get all their home games suspended

Sand

Annabella1 wrote: »

I am a United fan - check my posts !
If I was the FA I would hand 3 points to the opposition and try to put an end to the unrest...
Just a different perspective

Fair enough, but as I said to my knowledge the decision to postphone was unanimous. That means Liverpool also agreed the game couldn't proceed today. So who forfeited and who gets the three points?

But honestly, either way I wouldn't see the points deduction as a deterrent. It harms the Glazers more than it hurts the fans. It will require a scorched earth mentality to remove the Glazers from United. That means a willingness on the part of fans/protestors to accept point deductions, forfeits, fines, etc that the Glazers - and more importantly sponsors - aren't willing to accept.

Rangers thrashed Celtic 4-1 today and are on course to finish on a 100+ points. The were in administration and banished to the lowest levels of Scottish football 8 years ago. Now they are back and stronger than ever. I'm not a Rangers fan but there is a lesson there. If United fans truly find the Glazers unacceptable as owners, they need to be willing to accept a period in the wilderness to drive them out.

S.M.B.

Not sure what alternative options the PL have apart beyond moving the Liverpool - West Brom game which seems unlikely. Add to that the fact that United still have 3 home games to play so what's to guarantee that these games can take place as normal anyway.

davehey79

beakerjoe wrote: »

Commentator Jon Champion I imagine

http://www.espnfc.com/video/clip?id=4376207

Full video

jayo26

Annabella1 wrote: »

Any chance Utd could get a points deduction
Certainly Liverpool getting handed.3 points must be on the cards

Doubt it... I cant see Liverpool pushing for that seen as in recent years their own fans have been caught up in two bus attacks, setting fire to the liver building, blocking off ambulances trying to reach injured people that got caught up in their fans illegal title celebrations, pushing old people into ponds... It be a little bit hypocritical id say.

EltonJohn69

Would it not be against the FA’s own interest to punish a club protesting the Super league

Robson99

jayo26 wrote: »

Doubt it... I cant see Liverpool pushing for that seen as in recent years their own fans have been caught up in two bus attacks, setting fire to the liver building, blocking off ambulances trying to reach injured people that got caught up in their fans illegal title celebrations, pushing old people into ponds... It be a little bit hypocritical id say.

Stop ....they would never do that would they....you wouldn't think that reading some of the other threads...

beakerjoe

Pushing people into ponds?

jayo26

beakerjoe wrote: »

Pushing people into ponds?

Pond/fountain

El Gato De Negocios

beakerjoe wrote: »

Pushing people into ponds?

Happened iirc in Barcelona during CL, lad in a Liverpool jersey pushed an old man into a fountain.

jayo26

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Happened iirc in Barcelona during CL, lad in a Liverpool jersey pushed an old man into a fountain.

Racially abused the man and pushed him into a fountain. No reason at all.

beakerjoe

jayo26 wrote: »

Racially abused the man and pushed him into a fountain. No reason at all.

But to be fair, that's not a Liverpool fans issue, thats one idiot wearing a Pool shirt acting the dick.

Theres always a few thicks in every fan base

Headshot

Still ****ing delighted about today, even going on the pitch made me delighted

This was a real ****ing protest, none of that sitting in the stands waving the green and gold ****e, but making it impossible for the game to go ahead was really a sign of a proper protest

I dont want to diminish Arsenal fans protest as i feel we're like kindred spirits when it comes to owners but i find it hard to even remember their protest where as what the utd fans did today has sent a message to the football world

jayo26

beakerjoe wrote: »

But to be fair, that's not a Liverpool fans issue, thats one idiot wearing a Pool shirt acting the dick.

Theres always a few thicks in every fan base

Yep you're dead right so why should a legit protest that's been simmering for 16 years be tarnished because of a few idiots that went too far.

beakerjoe

jayo26 wrote: »

Yep you're dead right so why should a legit protest that's been simmering for 16 years be tarnished because of a few idiots that went too far.

It shouldn't. The majority Im sure protested without harning anyone.

MD1990

What would Man Utd fans want to happen?
New billionaire owners to invest in signings
Fan ownership.

Investment in infrastruture (training ground,stadiums) ?

Headshot

jayo26 wrote: »

Yep you're dead right so why should a legit protest that's been simmering for 16 years be tarnished because of a few idiots that went too far.

See there's certain elements in the media causing this and trying find anything to derail this movement

You even say it today with Souness voicing his support for the Glazers because A he has a strong hatred for utd and B he's not educated enough in this and probably looks at the media outlets such as the Telegraph which are a blight on the UK

Lithium93_

Headshot wrote: »

See there's certain elements in the media causing this and trying find anything to derail this movement

You even say it today with Souness voicing his support for the Glazers because A he has a strong hatred for utd and B he's not educated enough in this and probably looks at the media outlets such as the Telegraph which are a blight on the UK

Souness failed miserably at reading the room in his points/defence of the Glazer's. I'm sure most of what he said could easily be proven to be bull**** with a Google search.

Think he even said the fans weren't protesting when Ferguson was still at the helm, that's bull****.

https://twitter.com/yxngbaz/status/1388880380149837825

https://twitter.com/R_o_M/status/1388887963120152576

I'm actually surprised that Gary Neville didn't call him out on some of his bull****.

There's also this image to disprove Souness when he said the Glazers made improvements to the stadium.

https://twitter.com/UnitedCynic/status/1388877520615976961

Headshot

MD1990 wrote: »

What would Man Utd fans want to happen?
New billionaire owners to invest in signings
Fan ownership.

Investment in infrastruture (training ground,stadiums) ?

Utd dont need billionaires

If utd were able to spend the money they make on the commercial side back into club we'd be challenging for major honors every season

Unfortunately we'll need a billionaire to buy the club, that's the down side but the Billionaire shouldnt worry about putting more money back into the club

PhlegmyMoses

MD1990 wrote: »

What would Man Utd fans want to happen?
New billionaire owners to invest in signings
Fan ownership.

Investment in infrastruture (training ground,stadiums) ?

Here is what I would like to happen: All clubs to operate off their own steam. No more LBOs with owners leeching money out of the club and sandbagging the club with debt. No more super rich owners pumping clubs full of cash they never earnt.

MD1990

Headshot wrote: »

Utd dont need billionaires

If utd were able to spend the money they make on the commercial side back into club we'd be challenging for major honors every season

Unfortunately we'll need a billionaire to buy the club, that's the down side but the Billionaire shouldnt worry about putting more money back into the club

but Man Utd along with Man City have been spending way more than anyone else

The bigger problem seems to be the debt rather than money spent on players.
Stadium as well.

PhlegmyMoses

MD1990 wrote: »

but Man Utd along with Man City have been spending way more than anyone else

The bigger problem seems to be the debt rather than money spent on players.
Stadium as well.

Chelsea and Man City have spent more than United in the last 10 years. That's with Chelsea having a couple of season transfer ban too. United are 4th in the league for wage bill as well now behind City, Pool and Chelsea. The most well run club in the league for 2 decades, still earning the most money, and they don't outspend their rivals for either transfers or wages because they have been burdened with a debt they never needed.

MD1990

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Chelsea and Man City have spent more than United in the last 10 years. That's with Chelsea having a couple of season transfer ban too. United are 4th in the league for wage bill as well now behind City, Pool and Chelsea. The most well run club in the league for 2 decades, still earning the most money, and they don't outspend their rivals for either transfers or wages because they have been burdened with a debt they never needed.

I agree with most pf what you say.
But Man Utd have spent much more than Chelsea in net spend

PhlegmyMoses

MD1990 wrote: »

I agree with most pf what you say.
But Man Utd have spent much more than Chelsea in net spend

Why are you talking about net spend? Its an archaic way to look at football finances. No club at the top is reliant on sales to buy. In fact if a club with revenues like United and Liverpool are reliant on it, then that even makes my point more for me.

S.M.B.

I'm not sure if there is a single idyllic ownership model within the game but I do think the Glazers reign is towards the other end of the spectrum and this ESL fiasco clearly highlighted the disparity between traditional fan base and owners.

MrMusician18

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Here is what I would like to happen: All clubs to operate off their own steam. No more LBOs with owners leeching money out of the club and sandbagging the club with debt. No more super rich owners pumping clubs full of cash they never earnt.

Why, why do football businesses deserve protection from leveraged buyouts more than anyone else? Why should someone be limited in their freedom to sell their asset?

How would you like it if when you were trying to sell your house that you were not allowed to sell to anyone that was taking out a mortgage?

Sand

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why, why do football businesses deserve protection from leveraged buyouts more than anyone else? Why should someone be limited in their freedom to sell their asset?

How would you like it if when you were trying to sell your house that you were not allowed to sell to anyone that was taking out a mortgage?

Because football fans want it that way and they have votes? UK football fans need to make it a cross-party political issue. Power is all the why that is necessary.

The whole concept of wider social impact is already recognized as a constraint on your individual freedoms. It is why you cant play jungle music at three o clock in the morning full blast. All that is required is to extend that concept of social responsibility to football clubs.

py2006

I haven't read all this thread but do we know HOW the fans got into the stadium and onto the pitch?

Seems odd to me. Did somebody let them in that was in on it?

If not, its a major security concern. Imagine if it was a terrorist?

MrMusician18

Sand wrote: »

Because football fans want it that way and they have votes? UK football fans need to make it a cross-party political issue. Power is all the why that is necessary.

The whole concept of wider social impact is already recognized as a constraint on your individual freedoms. It is why you cant play jungle music at three o clock in the morning full blast. All that is required is to extend that concept of social responsibility to football clubs.

You haven't explained why football businesses are any different or special than any other types of business. In fact they, as covid has shown us, are non-essential entertainment companies. If a business like a cinema doesn't deserve protection from an LBO, then a football business doesn't either. Football "clubs" (they couldn't be further from clubs tbh) are not special.

Skylinehead

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why, why do football businesses deserve protection from leveraged buyouts more than anyone else? Why should someone be limited in their freedom to sell their asset?

How would you like it if when you were trying to sell your house that you were not allowed to sell to anyone that was taking out a mortgage?

Football is not mere business. There's already plenty of exceptions to normal business rules, such as player contracts, no reason why this can't be added.

Sand

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You haven't explained why football businesses are any different or special than any other types of business. In fact they, as covid has shown us, are non-essential entertainment companies. If a business like a cinema doesn't deserve protection from an LBO, then a football business doesn't either. Football "clubs" (they couldn't be further from clubs tbh) are not special.

I don't have to explain it tbh, any more why I have to explain why parks, or schools or hospitals are any more different or special than any other type of business. Either football fans in the UK will activate to achieve that status, or they wont. Your acceptance of the concept of football specifically, and sport more generally, as a cultural institution isnt important to either outcome.

Drumpot

MD1990 wrote: »

I agree with most pf what you say.
But Man Utd have spent much more than Chelsea in net spend

Look at 2005-2013 and you would see a very different picture. I think between 2008 and 2011 there was little to zero net spend because they sold the clubs best player and replaced him with Antonio Valencia. Be like Barca replacing messi with zaha. Actually 2005-2013 shows how good SAF was at making the most of resources that were available and how much better United were at identifying good players when the glazers had nothing to do with the football side of things.

Since 2013 the club has been run completely by the owners and their wastage is what’s caused the massive net spend. The chronic lack of investment in the squad before SAF retired is partially to blame for some of the spending needed when he left. I think it’s how it’s being spent, moreso then amount being spent that’s the issue. But since the owners don’t engage fans , there’s no trust and it feels like some players are not bought with the interest of the first team being prioritized. Some players nearly signed to make Woodward look good or for their potential marketing or resale value.

What’s worse is that they’ve refused to change anything on the football side, almost like they wanted to play football manager , refusing to make any changes (to anything other then managers) and relinquish any control. There was no obvious plan as you need to only look at the managers hired and you can’t find any cohesive plan of any sort.

I can’t see any other reason why they would allow the club to continue to haemorrhage hundreds of millions , inflated wage structure and then just not bother to make any meaningful changes. Any other business would make huge changes to such a wasteful area but for some reason the glazers were ok with lots of money being pissed away on bad signings and contract extensions.

In fact, the net spend shows how utterly useless they have been as owners. All that money spent and every season any idiot could point out multiple positions that need to be addressed and usually get looked after years later. I’d be curious to see the Gross spend for those clubs.

Until recently United were worth 2/3 times all but Barca and Madrid but they’ve managed to f^ck that up. How can every other club on that list get more value for their money then United?

MrMusician18

Skylinehead wrote: »

Football is not mere business. There's already plenty of exceptions to normal business rules, such as player contracts, no reason why this can't be added.

Football is a business and has been for the last 100 years when almost all clubs that existed at the time incorporated. MUFC is a plc, and there is no distinction between the "club" and the company, they are one and the same. Football contracts exist within normal business rules. In the UK, professional sports participants are employees, as are club managers and coaching staff, and are therefore covered by the normal rules of employment law with regard to both the common law and employment protection legislation but that is beside the point.

The only difference between a football business and any other is a perception that they are different. They're not. Business, football or otherwise exists for profit and to create shareholder value, nothing else: it's role certainly isn't too keep fans sweet at the cost of profit.

If soccer fans want to change the ownership structure of football they need to go out and set up clubs or buy the clubs themselves.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Why are you talking about net spend? Its an archaic way to look at football finances. No club at the top is reliant on sales to buy. In fact if a club with revenues like United and Liverpool are reliant on it, then that even makes my point more for me.

It’s a completely relevant metric. How would it not be?

Sand

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If soccer fans want to change the ownership structure of football they need to go out and set up clubs or buy the clubs themselves.

Or they can politically activate and demand politicians make legislation to regulate football clubs. Different companies face different regulatory environments. The concept of a company as a personal plaything beyond the law is nonsense. The power football fans have over billionaire owners is single issue voting.

MrMusician18

Sand wrote: »

I don't have to explain it tbh, any more why I have to explain why parks, or schools or hospitals are any more different or special than any other type of business. Either football fans in the UK will activate to achieve that status, or they wont. Your acceptance of the concept of football specifically, and sport more generally, as a cultural institution isnt important to either outcome.

Parks schools and hospitals are indeed different from other forms of business, so special and essential in fact that the state owns or operates these for the benefit of all, whilst allowing private for profit operators to exist too. Football "clubs" are entertainment and advertising companies at their core, the epitome of a non essential service.

If a so called "cultural institution" is a business, and run like a business then it should be subject to the same rules as every other business

MrMusician18

Sand wrote: »

Or they can politically activate and demand politicians make legislation to regulate football clubs. Different companies face different regulatory environments. The concept of a company as a personal plaything beyond the law is nonsense. The power football fans have over billionaire owners is single issue voting.

Regulatory environments almost always exist to protect health welfare environment and the common good. I cannot for the life of me see how billion pound entertainment companies fit into that.

While I agree that companies can't be above the law, there is no reason why companies can't be a personal plaything. If I own a company, I run it as I see fit. No one else should have the right to tell me how, and certainly not the mob.

If the endgame here is a more egalitarian ownership structure for English football, well then the easiest way for that to be achieved is for consumers to abandon the businesses selling it now.

dave_o_brien

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Football "clubs" (they couldn't be further from clubs tbh) are not special.

I've read all of what you've said with interest, but on the above specifically...

How are they not clubs?