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

beno619

Drumpot wrote: »

The funniest thing about this anti glazer stuff is that all they had to do was nothing. Just keep pillaging the club and doing a crap job and nothing would of happened. But no, they thought they were bulletproof and could do whatever they wanted and railroad this super league.

This could turn out to be the biggest ultimate backfire ever....

Actually based on the stuff posted earlier about the finances of the club it looks like they had to pursue it to continue to grow the commercial business.

It appears as though the level of revenue the club can bring in from sponsers (TeamViewer deal less lucrative than the Chevrolet one) and tv deals have tapered off.

So unless they can find other avenues to grow the business then I think we'll see increases in the dividend to keep investors/shareholders interested.

As Mitch has said a few times it would make sense for them to start looking for an exit strategy and sell up.

Lord TSC

I’m finding it interesting how little they’ve done so far to try and calm things down, compared to others.

Chelsea announcing today they are putting elected fans into board meetings. Some clubs putting up videos and messages promising to do better.

While it feels like there’s radio silence on our end. Just ultra generic PR statements. Not even some “leaks” of transfers to placate the fans. No response to counter the fan protests or undermine them. Just...nothing, really.

Jofspring

Lord TSC wrote: »

I’m finding it interesting how little they’ve done so far to try and calm things down, compared to others.

Chelsea announcing today they are putting elected fans into board meetings. Some clubs putting up videos and messages promising to do better.

While it feels like there’s radio silence on our end. Just ultra generic PR statements. Not even some “leaks” of transfers to placate the fans. No response to counter the fan protests or undermine them. Just...nothing, really.

Because ultimately they couldn't care less.

They can tip away as they are and just take their wedge every year or sell. Get the feeling it's no skin off their backs either way.

wanderer100

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1389687283947868168?s=20

Lord TSC

Love seeing the media hound him a bit. It’s easy enough for the likes of him to ignore fans in Manchester when he’s living the high life in Florida, but being chased by reporters will not be fun and adds genuine frustration into the situation for him.

Whatsisname

wanderer100 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1389687283947868168?s=20

He looks like Zoidberg without his shell.

Headshot

Whatsisname wrote: »

He looks like Zoidberg without his shell.

That's harsh on Zoidberg

billyhead

He's one weird looking dude. I doubt this heckling will have much of an effect. I reckon him and his brother are stubborn gits and he'll sell when it suits him not the fans.

Lithium93_

Turns out it Joel Glazer who torpedoed the Jadon Sancho signing....

https://twitter.com/UtdDistrict/status/1389596140471918595?s=19

Louis Friend

Dortmund wanted >£100m for Sancho in the middle of a pandemic.

The Glazers are parasites but I’m with them on that particular decision.

Lord TSC

I remember that being reported at the time. That we had the deal negotiated with the fee structure 99% set. And then Joel told Woodward to get it done cheaper, so we went back to try and renegotiate. At which point, Dortmund got annoyed and said “fine, now it’s 120m upfront or nothing”.

PARlance

Lord TSC wrote: »

Love seeing the media hound him a bit. It’s easy enough for the likes of him to ignore fans in Manchester when he’s living the high life in Florida, but being chased by reporters will not be fun and adds genuine frustration into the situation for him.

That's the kind of thing that will affect these type of people most, even more than the protests imo. They're used to confrontation in the business world but not really in their private life.

sReq | uTeK

Louis Friend wrote: »

Dortmund wanted >£100m for Sancho in the middle of a pandemic.

The Glazers are parasites but I’m with them on that particular decision.

And he's ****

StringerBell

Headshot wrote: »

https://streamable.com/kmarnv

A nasty piece of work and imagine a Liverpool fan sticking up for the utd fans instead of a past player

disgraceful carry on

A nasty piece of work and disgraceful carry on is a bit strong tbf.

You may not agree with what schmeichel is saying and of course he left himself open when he used the word proud in association with the glazers and the club but I think his explanation is on the money, they are proud to have this cash cow in their portfolio. It's a prestige thing, they have no affinity for the club or the fans but they enjoy the status owning such a global asset brings.

Schmeichel has a valid, and in many ways a pragmatic point of view, I may not agree with everything he said but that's beside the point.

StringerBell

Lord TSC wrote: »

I’m finding it interesting how little they’ve done so far to try and calm things down, compared to others.

Chelsea announcing today they are putting elected fans into board meetings. Some clubs putting up videos and messages promising to do better.

While it feels like there’s radio silence on our end. Just ultra generic PR statements. Not even some “leaks” of transfers to placate the fans. No response to counter the fan protests or undermine them. Just...nothing, really.

I feel like you don't fully appreciate how little the glazers care. They do not give a flying **** and are completely unaffected by fans. Have watched them with fascination in two sports for a long time at this stage as owners and they really couldn't give two ****s what anyone thinks. I wondered would anything change after Malcolm died in terms of that hard nosed ride it out or ride roughshod over them attitude, it doesn't seem like it has.

MrMusician18

Drumpot wrote: »

The funniest thing about this anti glazer stuff is that all they had to do was nothing. Just keep pillaging the club and doing a crap job and nothing would of happened. But no, they thought they were bulletproof and could do whatever they wanted and railroad this super league.

This could turn out to be the biggest ultimate backfire ever....

There is nothing exactly wrong with trying to get the most out of their investment

PhlegmyMoses

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There is nothing exactly wrong with trying to get the most out of their investment

Exactly. They need to maximise their revenue by diversifying their portfolio and wargaming each scenario with some blue-sky thinking during a thought shower. They're not trying to boil the ocean here, just accelerate growth and ensuring that all revenue streams are fully exploited and nothing is left on the table. Revert back if you can do the needful

MrMusician18

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Exactly. They need to maximise their revenue by diversifying their portfolio and wargaming each scenario with some blue-sky thinking during a thought shower. They're not trying to boil the ocean here, just accelerate growth and ensuring that all revenue streams are fully exploited and nothing is left on the table. Revert back if you can do the needful

Thanks for that. Why exactly shouldn't they get the most out of the club, it's their property after all. The fans aren't owed anything.

Weepsie

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Why exactly shouldn't they get the most out of the club, it's their property after all. The fans aren't owed anything.

On a leveraged buyout, not sure how they can really say it's theirs in anyway. It's entirely leveraged against the clubs assets too and none of theirs. They've not put a single cent of their own money into the purchasing of the club or the clearing down of the debt.

They've essentially taken a mortgage and used the clubs money to pay back a bit of it.

Best thing fans can do is to stop watching, stop reading, stop buying, subscribing. Just don't mention them. See the value fall. Maybe make the bank worry and force their hand.

sigmundv

PARlance wrote:

That's the kind of thing that will affect these type of people most, even more than the protests imo. They're used to confrontation in the business world but not really in their private life.

It should be said, however, that the media only go after him because of the protests, so the two go hand in hand.

paulbok

beno619 wrote: »

Actually based on the stuff posted earlier about the finances of the club it looks like they had to pursue it to continue to grow the commercial business.

It appears as though the level of revenue the club can bring in from sponsers (TeamViewer deal less lucrative than the Chevrolet one) and tv deals have tapered off.

So unless they can find other avenues to grow the business then I think we'll see increases in the dividend to keep investors/shareholders interested.

As Mitch has said a few times it would make sense for them to start looking for an exit strategy and sell up.

With regards to the bolded point;

They could have made a better effort in maintaining the valuable revenue streams by not wasting the money already spent on the wrong players thus maintaining success which would have meant more CL football, more tv money, more fan spending and bigger sponsorship deals.
After 15 years, they could also have substantially reduced the debt, freeing up 70m+ a year. Imagine getting an extra suitable 49/50m player each season, that would have gone a long way towards msking my first paragraph achievable. The remaining 20/30m going towards doing up the stadium, even taking 5m of that for a bigger dividend.

paulbok

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There is nothing exactly wrong with trying to get the most out of their investment

But they are not getting the most out of their investment as it is, in fact the way they are running it, they are losing the long built up value of the club brand.
The ESL was just an easy/lazy way to mask that.
Another 10 years and they would be agitating for another source of easy money, probably their own tv deal for games, which I believe is the ultimate aim of all these American owners

billyhead

Weepsie wrote: »

On a leveraged buyout, not sure how they can really say it's theirs in anyway. It's entirely leveraged against the clubs assets too and none of theirs. They've not put a single cent of their own money into the purchasing of the club or the clearing down of the debt.

They've essentially taken a mortgage and used the clubs money to pay back a bit of it.

Best thing fans can do is to stop watching, stop reading, stop buying, subscribing. Just don't mention them. See the value fall. Maybe make the bank worry and force their hand.

Not going to happen. United have a huge Asian fan base. Look at all the day trippers to Old Trafford on match day. Half are foreigners.

MrMusician18

paulbok wrote: »

But they are not getting the most out of their investment as it is, in fact the way they are running it, they are losing the long built up value of the club brand.
The ESL was just an easy/lazy way to mask that.
Another 10 years and they would be agitating for another source of easy money, probably their own tv deal for games, which I believe is the ultimate aim of all these American owners

That's up the owners to decide how to do that, not you or I.

These are businesses, nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't dream of telling the local shopkeeper how to run his shop, what right does one have to tell the Glazers how to run theirs.

The irony of Sky asking them do they think the fans are just customers.

BenK

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's up the owners to decide how to do that, not you or I.

These are businesses, nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't dream of telling the local shopkeeper how to run his shop, what right does one have to tell the Glazers how to run theirs.

The irony of Sky asking them do they think the fans are just customers.

That's one take on it alright but I think the argument most people have is that football clubs are, or at least should be, more than just businesses and should have appropriate protections in place to prevent their exploitation by opportunistic people. To say they are nothing more than businesses is a bit simplistic in my view. Comparing them to a local shop is comparing apples and oranges.

PARlance

sigmundv wrote: »

It should be said, however, that the media only go after him because of the protests, so the two go hand in hand.

Absolutely, I wasn't trying to downplay the protest side.

paulbok

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's up the owners to decide how to do that, not you or I.

These are businesses, nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't dream of telling the local shopkeeper how to run his shop, what right does one have to tell the Glazers how to run theirs.

The irony of Sky asking them do they think the fans are just customers.

But a football club is not just a business despite it being run as one.

If the local Centra gets run into the ground, customers may be briefly inconvenienced but will simply move their business to the local Spar/Supervalu without a second thought.
If United gets run into the ground, most fans* especially those in Manchester and I guess in Ireland, are not going to suddenly shift allegiance to another club. You won't see the protests such as from Sunday for the local boozer closing, though when employees get shafted by the business you can (e.g. debenhams).
For many fans, the old Shankly quote of " Football isn't a matter of life and death, it's far more important than that" is very much true and they will act out accordingly, rightly or wrongly.

* there are always fair weather fans who only support the "en Vogue" clubs, particularly Asian fans, who will switch no problem, the club is already hemorrhaging those and their $$$$.

Liam O

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's up the owners to decide how to do that, not you or I.

These are businesses, nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't dream of telling the local shopkeeper how to run his shop, what right does one have to tell the Glazers how to run theirs.

The irony of Sky asking them do they think the fans are just customers.

Yeah well in a similar way to these shopkeepers, why are they given higher status because they are "businessmen"? Souness' was banging that uneducated nonsense the other day, just a couple of weeks after saying the Liverpool owners may not be welcome at Anfield again.

If a shopkeeper was causing trouble in his community and the place was falling apart, there would probably be visits from health and safety authorities who would tell them to put money into fixing it. If you were in a shop and there was water literally leaking from the roof onto your head you may suggest that he fixes it or you won't shop there anymore.

Obviously that's a simplistic way of looking at it and wouldn't apply directly to a sports team that many have followed for most of their lives but I can't understand the level of people who simply won't read a single thing about this before spouting nonsense. State of the internet these days I guess.

DM_7

BenK wrote: »

That's one take on it alright but I think the argument most people have is that football clubs are, or at least should be, more than just businesses and should have appropriate protections in place to prevent their exploitation by opportunistic people. To say they are nothing more than businesses is a bit simplistic in my view. Comparing them to a local shop is comparing apples and oranges.

Burnley have recently been bought out a mortgage type loan against turf moor and future earnings while also use of the clubs own cash reserves. In terms of how football clubs should operate, it is over 15 years since the United takeover and it is shocking that such a process can still happen.

In terms of United's position, as objectionable as the Glazers position is there is a reality that United were a PLC, were taken over, privatised and that the Glazers are within their rights to operate a business model that sees them generate big revenues and utilise that towards business costs including financing or pay dividends to its shareholders.

Idealistic ideas about a football club compared to another business are to a degree fanciful. United have remained sustainable during their ownership and when it comes to future regulations it is probably all that can be asked of existing club owners - that they maintain a sustainable position.

Manchester United were a very successful PLC in its time where the shareholders could keep the board in check and things like investing in Old Trafford and good use of funds towards the first team were a must to keep those shareholders happy and improve the business. Yet that model also left them in a position to be taken over as they were.

In Spain, by law, only four clubs are not privately owned (Real, Barca, Athletic Bilbao, and Osasuna ) and two of those were supporters of the ESL (Real and Barca). That socio model also has significant issues as they can end up with presidents making populist decisions to get votes and actually damage a club financially.

In the middle we have what happened to Leeds where populist ideas and large borrowing to fund great times only became an issue later on.

There is certainly a need for regulation and compromise position to end the process where we see clubs landed with debt or clubs like Bury collapse. A regulator overseeing clubs is needed in the UK anyway due to the size of its league system. A financial and licensing system to ensure clubs are sustainable and protected from owners taking money out of football is probably achievable.

The idea of owners not taking any money out seems impossible to achieve but at least a system that stops them loading clubs with debt and potentially ruining a club could be implemented over time.

It is mad to think all the time and effort that went into worrying about owners putting money into clubs when the real danger has always been about putting debts and taking money out of clubs.

Edit: Just to say none of the above is intended as a defence of the Glazers. I don't want them at United either.

Tchaikovsky

MrMusician18

BenK wrote: »

That's one take on it alright but I think the argument most people have is that football clubs are, or at least should be, more than just businesses and should have appropriate protections in place to prevent their exploitation by opportunistic people. To say they are nothing more than businesses is a bit simplistic in my view. Comparing them to a local shop is comparing apples and oranges.

Isn't the problem though, that IS all they are, and have been for a long long time, ever since the trustees sold out. Blame them.

So if a football club is a business, is a bit rich to be complaining about it being run as one - for profit and shareholder value. The owners are entitled to their profit. What you seem to be describing is a non profit or charity and ManU are as far from a charity as you can get.

And I don't get the denigration of overseas, particularly Asian football consumers here. Said without a hint of irony I note. Their money is just as good as anyone elses and without them the PL wouldn't have near the amount of talent available.

Mitch Connor

I wonder what the club is going to do about the Leicster game on Wednesday next week. I would have thought protests are very likely again, and there is a decent possibility of the game being disrupted again.

The club have, as of yet (and there is a week to go) done absolutely nothing to quell the anger at the club ownership - no response to the fans forum letter, no ownership presence at the fan forum and, despite assurance from joel they were going to work hard to rebuild the trust (lol) there has been zero communication.

I don't think doing absolutely nothing is going to help matters when it comes to the home game next week. if they think it was just because it was Liverpool at the weekend I reckon they'll be surprised. Maybe because it is midweek they are not as worried - the Roma game went ahead without any issues. But I do think fan action is more likely following Sundays.

As for what they could do long term - selling is the best option but I don't see it. no chance, imo, they sell shares in large scale to fans. The one thing playing in my head is the Woodward replacement issue - if they can get VDS in, I reckon they could use him to spin a more fan friendly stance from the club, and a more football focused stance from the club. I don't think it is likely, but I do think it is something they could probably look at and not require selling up and selling a portion.

Mitch Connor

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Isn't the problem though, that IS all they are, and have been for a long long time, ever since the trustees sold out. Blame them.

So if a football club is a business, is a bit rich to be complaining about it being run as one - for profit and shareholder value. The owners are entitled to their profit. What you seem to be describing is a non profit or charity and ManU are as far from a charity as you can get.

And I don't get the denigration of overseas, particularly Asian football consumers here. Said without a hint of irony I note. Their money is just as good as anyone elses and without them the PL wouldn't have near the amount of talent available.

You are taking the question on step too far, in that you are assuming an acceptance that football should be treated as nothing more than a business.

Football clubs being ran as a business, solely, and not as a community driven 'club' which is what they started as, is the problem. Its also why, in essence, the 50+1 rule exists in Germany - so that football fans remain important to the football club and the game in general.

People aren't protesting that Glazers are treating a business as a business. they are protesting that they are treating a football club as a business.

Also, a large part of the anger at the Glazers is also down to the opinion that even if you accepted their business strategy - the lack of vision, governance, accountability and standards at United, leading to massive wastes of money (in terms of Transfer Fees and wages) that have brought United from continually competing for or winnign titles, to maybe qualifying for the Europa League.

Yes, the #1billion they have removed from the club to pay themselves and the debt the bought the club with (well, the interest on the debt) is a big issue, but the fact they have shown scant regard or care for the terrible stewardship of Woodward is also a big issue.

v3ttel

Ashley Young posted a picture of him, Lukaku, Sanchez and Darmian celebrating the Scudetto together. Looks like he's throwing shade towards United. Seems a bit unnecessary especially for someone who represented United as captain. All the same, happy for him, Lukaku and Darmian, but Alexis Sanchez can absolutely go and........

Headshot

Good to see you back Mitch

Mitch Connor

Headshot wrote: »

Good to see you back Mitch

stupid autocorrect!

The Big Easy

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I wonder what the club is going to do about the Leicster game on Wednesday next week. I would have thought protests are very likely again, and there is a decent possibility of the game being disrupted again.

The club have, as of yet (and there is a week to go) done absolutely nothing to quell the anger at the club ownership - no response to the fans forum letter, no ownership presence at the fan forum and, despite assurance from joel they were going to work hard to rebuild the trust (lol) there has been zero communication.

I don't think doing absolutely nothing is going to help matters when it comes to the home game next week. if they think it was just because it was Liverpool at the weekend I reckon they'll be surprised. Maybe because it is midweek they are not as worried - the Roma game went ahead without any issues. But I do think fan action is more likely following Sundays.

As for what they could do long term - selling is the best option but I don't see it. no chance, imo, they sell shares in large scale to fans. The one thing playing in my head is the Woodward replacement issue - if they can get VDS in, I reckon they could use him to spin a more fan friendly stance from the club, and a more football focused stance from the club. I don't think it is likely, but I do think it is something they could probably look at and not require selling up and selling a portion.

They have to be emboldened by what happened on Sunday and the overall consequences to go again I think. Personally I'd love if they got another game postponed and caused a serious headache for everyone involved.

I know this movement is bigger than investment in the squad, however, what do you think, personally and generally, would be the impact of say a splurge on Kane and Sancho?

That allied to a VDS type appointment might be enough to take the heat out of the wider situation and paint the remaining hardcore as unreasonable?

Anyway, just wargaming as someone said earlier.

Liam O

v3ttel wrote: »

Ashley Young posted a picture of him, Lukaku, Sanchez and Darmian celebrating the Scudetto together. Looks like he's throwing shade towards United. Seems a bit unnecessary especially for someone who represented United as captain. All the same, happy for him, Lukaku and Darmian, but Alexis Sanchez can absolutely go and........

Made a load of money off the club while being sub standard on the pitch. I suppose they all have that in common. Darmian I did always hold out hope for and thought he could have been used better. But that was more to do with Valencia being rubbish too.

MrMusician18

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You are taking the question on step too far, in that you are assuming an acceptance that football should be treated as nothing more than a business.

Football clubs being ran as a business, solely, and not as a community driven 'club' which is what they started as, is the problem. Its also why, in essence, the 50+1 rule exists in Germany - so that football fans remain important to the football club and the game in general.

People aren't protesting that Glazers are treating a business as a business. they are protesting that they are treating a football club as a business.

Also, a large part of the anger at the Glazers is also down to the opinion that even if you accepted their business strategy - the lack of vision, governance, accountability and standards at United, leading to massive wastes of money (in terms of Transfer Fees and wages) that have brought United from continually competing for or winnign titles, to maybe qualifying for the Europa League.

Yes, the #1billion they have removed from the club to pay themselves and the debt the bought the club with (well, the interest on the debt) is a big issue, but the fact they have shown scant regard or care for the terrible stewardship of Woodward is also a big issue.

I do think the bit in bold his the nail on the head. There seems to be an expectation for a football business to act like it's a member owned club. But it's not a member owned club, is a massive company owned by the Glazers. They are entitled to run it any way they want (within the law) whether or not it's fans agree. That's their right as property owners.

50+1 is a pipe dream, forget about it. It would be very difficult legally to force the glazers to do that and would set a precedent in UK commercial law - something that they are very protective of because they are seen as well understood, fair arbiters globally.

Quite simply, if fans don't like the management they have the option to vote with their feet and their wallets. It really is that simple, and quotes like Shankleys are just childish nonsense - this is just mass entertainment and not that important.

The money they take out of the club, quite frankly, is no one else's business.

The Big Easy

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I do think the bit in bold his the nail on the head. There seems to be an expectation for a football business to act like it's a member owned club. But it's not a member owned club, is a massive company owned by the Glazers. They are entitled to run it any way they want (within the law) whether or not it's fans agree. That's their right as property owners.

50+1 is a pipe dream, forget about it. It would be very difficult legally to force the glazers to do that and would set a precedent in UK commercial law - something that they are very protective of because they are seen as well understood, fair arbiters globally.

Quite simply, if fans don't like the management they have the option to vote with their feet and their wallets. It really is that simple, and quotes like Shankleys are just childish nonsense - this is just mass entertainment and not that important.

The money they take out of the club, quite frankly, is no one else's business.

I think your posts are willfully obtuse on this matter and designed to rankle.

BenK

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Isn't the problem though, that IS all they are, and have been for a long long time, ever since the trustees sold out. Blame them.

So if a football club is a business, is a bit rich to be complaining about it being run as one - for profit and shareholder value. The owners are entitled to their profit. What you seem to be describing is a non profit or charity and ManU are as far from a charity as you can get.

And I don't get the denigration of overseas, particularly Asian football consumers here. Said without a hint of irony I note. Their money is just as good as anyone elses and without them the PL wouldn't have near the amount of talent available.

Naturally if your starting point is that football clubs are only businesses, and that's all they should be, then it leads to a particular end point on the topic. I'm not blaming the Glazers, the system allowed them to do what they did and are doing. Obviously they're not doing anything illegal.

However, I strongly disagree that clubs should be seen as purely businesses (accepting that in the UK at least that's pretty much all they are seen as currently). Germany offers an example of a different approach. Clearly one of the reasons fans in the UK are protesting at the moment is because the status quo under current legislation, of clubs being solely seen as businesses ripe for exploitation, doesn't sit right with so many people.

FourFourRED

v3ttel wrote: »

Ashley Young posted a picture of him, Lukaku, Sanchez and Darmian celebrating the Scudetto together. Looks like he's throwing shade towards United. Seems a bit unnecessary especially for someone who represented United as captain. All the same, happy for him, Lukaku and Darmian, but Alexis Sanchez can absolutely go and........

Haven’t seen the photo and wouldn’t care much about it but fair play to him for coming out and saying this:

https://twitter.com/utdreport/status/1389897966106914820?s=12

MrMusician18

The Big Easy wrote: »

I think your posts are willfully obtuse on this matter and designed to rankle.

My posts aren't designed to rankle, I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room. You cannot expect a commercial for profit entity to behave like a member owned community club. It's a point that seems poorly understood, because football clubs are seemingly "special".

And this is not just United, If fans wanted them to remain member owned clubs, they shouldn't have sold them, or bought shares when they were listed, or came together to buy them when the opportunity arose. They didn't do any of that - happy to let private money bankroll the good times, but kick up when things are not going well.

beakerjoe

The Ashely Young photo is simply a photo with his mates from United..... no shade from what i can see. Happy for them.

Akesh

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I do think the bit in bold his the nail on the head. There seems to be an expectation for a football business to act like it's a member owned club. But it's not a member owned club, is a massive company owned by the Glazers. They are entitled to run it any way they want (within the law) whether or not it's fans agree. That's their right as property owners.

50+1 is a pipe dream, forget about it. It would be very difficult legally to force the glazers to do that and would set a precedent in UK commercial law - something that they are very protective of because they are seen as well understood, fair arbiters globally.

Quite simply, if fans don't like the management they have the option to vote with their feet and their wallets. It really is that simple, and quotes like Shankleys are just childish nonsense - this is just mass entertainment and not that important.

The money they take out of the club, quite frankly, is no one else's business.

50+1 is not a pipe dream, the Glazers could be forced to sell a portion of the business to facilitate 50 + 1. A pipe dream would be advising people to vote with their feet and wallets, which doesn't work. This has happened and achieved nothing.

Legislating for 50 + 1 would have no impact on the general market except for football clubs. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Leveraged buy outs were illegal until Reagan. You do realise as society matures, we can enact new laws? This happens all the time.

Whether you agree with it or not, football fans should have a say in how their clubs operate and are run. Thankfully, the consensus appears to completely disagree with you and your attitude towards ownership of a football club.

Cookiemunster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I wonder what the club is going to do about the Leicster game on Wednesday next week. I would have thought protests are very likely again, and there is a decent possibility of the game being disrupted again.

I'd say a massive police presence and extra security to stop anyone getting into the ground and similar at the team hotel. I'd expect a 'ring of steel' around the ground with nobody left within 100 or so meters. The bigger issue could be the Fulham game where there's due to be 10,000 fans in attendance.

Your Airbag

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I wonder what the club is going to do about the Leicster game on Wednesday next week. I would have thought protests are very likely again, and there is a decent possibility of the game being disrupted again.

The club have, as of yet (and there is a week to go) done absolutely nothing to quell the anger at the club ownership - no response to the fans forum letter, no ownership presence at the fan forum and, despite assurance from joel they were going to work hard to rebuild the trust (lol) there has been zero communication.

I don't think doing absolutely nothing is going to help matters when it comes to the home game next week. if they think it was just because it was Liverpool at the weekend I reckon they'll be surprised. Maybe because it is midweek they are not as worried - the Roma game went ahead without any issues. But I do think fan action is more likely following Sundays.

As for what they could do long term - selling is the best option but I don't see it. no chance, imo, they sell shares in large scale to fans. The one thing playing in my head is the Woodward replacement issue - if they can get VDS in, I reckon they could use him to spin a more fan friendly stance from the club, and a more football focused stance from the club. I don't think it is likely, but I do think it is something they could probably look at and not require selling up and selling a portion.

The club and the club ownership are one in the same, how can they quell the anger when they are the source of it? Staff at the club are under huge pressure and a media spotlight atm. I don't think some administrative staff can put together a statement for the fans without it getting Glazer approval and I'm sure they just want to ride out this storm.

People can hardly say "yeah we don't like these owners that much we promise to make progress to fix that situation" when the owners may have no intention of leaving. Someone would probably be sacked if they did. Their ability to talk about Man Utd is also pretty much owned by the Glazers.

The_Kew_Tour

Young when injuried used to be in away section with United fans.

A great servant to the club, always gave 100%. Just faded near end and it was best he left.

But I have no doubt he loves club and wishes them well once not at expense of his current club.

MrMusician18

Akesh wrote: »

50+1 is not a pipe dream, the Glazers could be forced to sell a portion of the business to facilitate 50 + 1. A pipe dream would be advising people to vote with their feet and wallets, which doesn't work. This has happened and achieved nothing.

Legislating for 50 + 1 would have no impact on the general market except for football clubs. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Leveraged buy outs were illegal until Reagan. You do realise as society matures, we can enact new laws? This happens all the time.

Whether you agree with it or not, football fans should have a say in how their clubs operate and are run. Thankfully, the consensus appears to completely disagree with you and your attitude towards ownership of a football club.

Of course it works. Businesses fold all the time because they are not good enough, and do not meet the needs of their customers. Don't like the way United is being run, stop giving them money, stop buying what they are selling. There is an alternative community club out there - FC United of Manchester

Members should have a say in how clubs are run, but Manchester United ceased to be a club about a hundred years ago, when the trustees sold out. Shareholders decide how companies are managed and run.

As for forcing 50+1, that would be quite revolutionary in terms of property rights and commercial ownership. I cannot see that happening in the UK - because if you can do it for clubs, why not for other industry.

Schism

MrMusician18 wrote: »

These are businesses, nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't dream of telling the local shopkeeper how to run his shop, what right does one have to tell the Glazers how to run theirs.

You're correct in saying these clubs are a business, but they're a club first. I wouldn't dare go into the local Dunnes and tell the manager how I want the aisles aligned to suit me. At the same time, there's not thousands of people cheering on the staff when they stack the shelves in these aisles.

My point is, whilst they're both businesses, they're not one in the same. But if we take it at face value, and lets for arguments sake, say they're both businesses with no underlying differences. If the manager in this made up shop was to say, stop stocking long loved favourites, or let the shop go into disrepair. This would make the customers unhappy, they'd talk about it, probably start shopping somewhere else most likely. If the manager wants to remain profitable he has to listen to what his customers are saying.

Now with the Man United business, the owner(s), for example, tried to fundamentally change a league for the worse, shirked advancing of infrastructure. This is making the customers (fans) unhappy, we're talking about it, people might stop buying merchandise, if stadiums were open, games would be boycotted. If the owner(s) want to maintain a profitable business they have to listen to what the customers (fans) are saying.

Now, I'm with you on one point. The Glazer kids own this business, they have the right to try and make personal profit from it. My, and I think most fans issue is, because it's a football club first it holds a strong emotional sway over people. As such when the ownership is prioritizing their personal gain over continued sporting success, the customers (fans) are not going to be happy - and rightfully so.