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

Mitch Connor

Your Airbag wrote: »

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.

Engage in actual conversation with fan groups. Commit to working towards some of the issue ls. 50+1 won't happen but fan representation at board level so there is visibility to club direction? Doesn't seem outlandish. Combat the concern the club is 100% directed to commercial operations rather than on field performance.

MrMusician18

Schism wrote: »

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.

This is exactly it. The only way fans, consumers, should be putting their point across is through the withdrawal of their custom. They have absolutely no right to demand a stake in the business, demand answers from management, demand new directors or demand consultation on business direction.
I've never seen something so entitled as the letter from MUST.

EltonJohn69

Does anyone else think the “the Glazer pony tale” might be the look for summer 2021 ?

Akesh

MrMusician18 wrote: »

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.

Again you're missing the crux of the issue. The fans do not want an alternative club, FC United took about 3k of the OT hardcore support, the rest remained. You're oversimplifying the whole issue as if this is a piece of computer software or a packet of minstrels. The ESL was a crazy idea, designed to further widen the gap in club football. You're also 100% wrong on the fans. If the Glazers could do what they want, they would have the ESL. Why don't they? The fans!

50+1 is not a revolutionary idea unless you know nothing of German football. It does not have an impact on wider property or commercial ownership, except for the ownership of football clubs. It's nonsense to suggest if the government enacts a 50 + 1 law, then there is a slippery slope to 50 + 1 elsewhere. You do realise the difference between a football club and an ordinary business serving its customers? To suggest they are one and the same is nonsense.

I don't believe you're genuinely engaging in the topic at hand.

Mitch Connor

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This is exactly it. The only way fans, consumers, should be putting their point across is through the withdrawal of their custom. They have absolutely no right to demand a stake in the business, demand answers from management, demand new directors or demand consultation on business direction.
I've never seen something so entitled as the letter from MUST.

They have a right to demand whatever they want to.
Just as the Glazers can chose to ignore it.

I did think most of the MUST demands were fanciful at best - such as demanding Glazers sell up large amounts of their preference A shares. They will either sell up, or not. they won't sell out piecemeal to fans. The demand of 50+1 is insane, imo. I just don't see Glazers doing that themselves nor the Government pushing it on private enterprise.

But still think that fans are entitled to protest their ownership of United. Fans are entitled to be angry and voice that anger of 900million going out of the club on interest payments on Glazer debt alone.

billyhead

https://youtu.be/OBlk8_HIJIw. Can't wait for this.

Mitch Connor

Akesh wrote: »

Again you're missing the crux of the issue. The fans do not want an alternative club, FC United took about 3k of the OT hardcore support, the rest remained. You're oversimplifying the whole issue as if this is a piece of computer software or a packet of minstrels. The ESL was a crazy idea, designed to further widen the gap in club football. You're also 100% wrong on the fans. If the Glazers could do what they want, they would have the ESL. Why don't they? The fans!

50+1 is not a revolutionary idea unless you know nothing of German football. It does not have an impact on wider property or commercial ownership, except for the ownership of football clubs. It's nonsense to suggest if the government enacts a 50 + 1 law, then there is a slippery slope to 50 + 1 elsewhere. You do realise the difference between a football club and an ordinary business serving its customers? To suggest they are one and the same is nonsense.

I don't believe you're genuinely engaging in the topic at hand.

the german model was built with that from the start though - the government didn't impose it upon the clubs.

For government to do it now in the PL you would be seeing the government step on and either massively devalue the clubs or force the sale of private shares, which I can't see happening.

Maybe it isn't a slippery slope to it happening elsewhere, but would still be a HUGE step to be taken against football clubs. There would be huge court battles over it, and I don't see the government having appetite for it.

dave_o_brien

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Quite simply, if fans don't like the management they have the option to vote with their feet

Isn't that what the protests are doing? Blockading matches to prevent revenue?

I'm a fan of the club, not ManU t/a Glazers Inc. As such, I am happy for the fans to stage protests that damage the "value" of the brand such that investors may be scared off. I am even happier if penalties are put in place that deduct us points to avoid European Football and the revenue it attracts. Better yet, relegate us.

Will the Glazers remain interested in United if this a reality? I don't know the answer, but I suspect not.

Would most United fans accept this as a necessity to remove the Glazers? Again, I don't know but suspect not. There is such an expectation of success evident amongst a lot of Man United fans (especially non-Manchester based fans like myself) that inviting a long period in the wilderness in anathema to their support.

The Big Easy

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/12297427/man-utd-protest-ole-gunnar-solskjaer-says-violent-incidents-went-too-far-but-wants-club-to-listen-to-supporters

Fair enough again from Ole I think.

He's in a tough position and think he's handling it very well, managing not to alienate either side. He's effectively bang in the middle of the whole thing.

Whatever people think of Ole as a tactician or coach, he certainly possesses soft skills that enable him to get on well with players, owners and supporters.

DM_7

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This is exactly it. The only way fans, consumers, should be putting their point across is through the withdrawal of their custom. They have absolutely no right to demand a stake in the business, demand answers from management, demand new directors or demand consultation on business direction.
I've never seen something so entitled as the letter from MUST.

The ideas you are putting forward are going to meet resistance on a superthread for the team spoken of. They would probably find more favour in a broader thread on the topic of ownership. Fair play to you for making effort to explain your views.

I think you do make some fair points but there is a bigger picture than just a business categorisation. Yes Manchester United is not just a football club, it is also a business that was a PLC and was taken into private ownership with some lower option shares now available for trade. Fans don't own the club or have any given rights so they could choose the options you mention if they are put out by owners.

Regardless of how big a club becomes it is the case that football clubs have been built in local communites and clubs still have most direct interactions with those that have the club as a major part of their lives. They may not have an actual stake in the club but they see it as something of great importance to them and are well within their rights to ask question, even entitled ones of the ownership, they may not like the answers (or lack of answers) but they can ask.

It is also the case the tradition and history of clubs and their importance to local communities for its economy need to be protected and if anything fans should be asking goverment to protect clubs and ensure they are sustainable. If a building can be a protected structure then a football club and wider football league can be protected and not just bulldozed for the interests of a few.

I say all lf the above in the knowledge I am in Ireland, chose to support that club many years ago, am at some distance from the position and importance the club has compared to others. For me the idea they are just businesses that should not have such scrutiny or questions asked by fans is just not accurate.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Combat the concern the club is 100% directed to commercial operations rather than on field performance.

I suspect the issue is that the concern is well founded, but they dont want to do anything about it.

Weepsie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the german model was built with that from the start though - the government didn't impose it upon the clubs.

It was only brought in as a rule in the 90s.

The german model of ownership just didn't change in the way it did elsewhere, and when it looked like it might, they brought in that rule to strike a balance

Mitch Connor

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

I suspect the issue is that the concern is well founded, but they dont want to do anything about it.

I agree - but I think there are steps the club could make to change the perception, if not the reality by a huge degree.

something as 'simple' as bringing in VDS in a CEO/Director role as a replacement for Woodward, with possibly Arnold getting a promotion too so you would have a commercial head and football head. VDS leading the long term vision of the club from a football perspective, and possibly leading changes at the club in terms of fan engagement at least would be big steps.

I think that would be a bigger step in the right direction than signing Sancho for eg. and doesn't require them selling up or out.

Mitch Connor

Weepsie wrote: »

It was only brought in as a rule in the 90s.

The german model of ownership just didn't change in the way it did elsewhere, and when it looked like it might, they brought in that rule to strike a balance

The clubs were member owned prior to this though weren;t they? The 50+1 rule was to proect the member ownship and allow minority investment.

Your Airbag

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Engage in actual conversation with fan groups. Commit to working towards some of the issue ls. 50+1 won't happen but fan representation at board level so there is visibility to club direction? Doesn't seem outlandish. Combat the concern the club is 100% directed to commercial operations rather than on field performance.

Who exactly will be doing the engaging? The PR department, HR? I'm sure the Glazers want complete control over PR matters to limit more damage atm. The club talks when they allow it.

They may be involved in internal talks to try get the supporters back on side or may not care in the least but looking for a statement from the club this past week, separate to Glazer knowledge or approval seems to be what you were expecting which is unrealistic. Who internally is going to jeopardize their paycheck by doing that?

Akesh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the german model was built with that from the start though - the government didn't impose it upon the clubs.

For government to do it now in the PL you would be seeing the government step on and either massively devalue the clubs or force the sale of private shares, which I can't see happening.

Maybe it isn't a slippery slope to it happening elsewhere, but would still be a HUGE step to be taken against football clubs. There would be huge court battles over it, and I don't see the government having appetite for it.

I never suggested the German government imposed it upon clubs. It's not a slippery slope to anything. The only reason court battles will happen if the legislation isn't watertight.

Let's not make up reasons why this shouldn't happen. Governments forcing private enterprises to sell shares is not a new concept.

The main barrier is the cost, not legislation.

Mitch Connor

Your Airbag wrote: »

Who exactly will be doing the engaging? The PR department, HR? I'm sure the Glazers want complete control over PR matters to limit more damage atm. The club talks when they allow it.

They may be involved in internal talks to try get the supporters back on side or may not care in the least but looking for a statement from the club this past week, separate to Glazer knowledge or approval seems to be what you were expecting which is unrealistic. Who internally is going to jeopardize their paycheck by doing that?

Joel Glazer said they are going to communicate, and rebuild the trust. So.. Joel? Why not? If they do care about the fans like they say (they don't) and want to rebuild trust like they say (they don't) - then they need to communicate with the fans. Via fan representation. One of the Kronke's attended the Arsenal fan forum the other week.

Football is nothing without fans, apparently. Is it?

Schism

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This is exactly it. The only way fans, consumers, should be putting their point across is through the withdrawal of their custom. They have absolutely no right to demand a stake in the business, demand answers from management, demand new directors or demand consultation on business direction.
I've never seen something so entitled as the letter from MUST.

I know it's a tough one, and in most other businesses there wouldn't be that demand but in most other businesses, the customers don't have the same emotional investment as United fans have in their club. Take the example of shareholders in a company, if they're not happy with their boards performance, it's likely they'll be oust that board. The reason the fans are acting as they are now is because they see themselves as shareholders (metaphorically) in United. They want to safeguard the future of the club they love, that's part of life for them. If you look at it like that, I believe the actions taken are completely understandable.

I see what you're saying but correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying the consumers of the product United are selling (be it footballing success, or merchandise, or whatever), are just that - merely consumers and as such have no right to demand anything of the club. My point is because the business is a football club, the fans will never just be merely consumers. Football, even as a business is just too driven by emotion for that to be true.

Drumpot

Akesh wrote: »

I never suggested the German government imposed it upon clubs. It's not a slippery slope to anything. The only reason court battles will happen if the legislation isn't watertight.

Let's not make up reasons why this shouldn't happen. Governments forcing private enterprises to sell shares is not a new concept.

The main barrier is the cost, not legislation.

Bank bailout comes to mind. . The rules of the game were ripped apart, state guarantees for banks and bondholders (private investors/institutions) to prop up the entire system and supposedly for the greater good of the game. (Iceland says hello)

Why cant football or the government do the same for a sport ? Is it good that vultures like the Glazers are taking so much out and putting f**K all back into the game ? That their greed threatens the sport in Europe, with a breakaway league that will be pushed again in the future. . That some owners are using clubs to sports wash or enhance their profile for non football reasons. Why shouldn't the sport change its rules to protect itself such a hostile threat ?

If the Government and football authorities changed the rules on ownership retrospectively, its hard to see how that will be a bad thing for the sport. If its good for the majority, who cares about the glazers or more insidious owners pumping money into teams? Most of us think it prob wont change because the horse has bolted and no doubt these owners wouldn't allow things to change without a fight. .

These business people consider themselves above the interest of the greater good. Their financial strength allows them to override the desires of the majority because of a closed shop capitalist system that suits itself. It wants freedom when it suits and bailouts/changes when it suits.

Mitch Connor

Drumpot wrote: »

Bank bailout comes to mind. . The rules of the game were ripped apart, state guarantees for banks and bondholders (private investors/institutions) to prop up the entire system and supposedly for the greater good of the game. (Iceland says hello)

Why cant football or the government do the same for a sport ? Is it good that vultures like the Glazers are taking so much out and putting f**K all back into the game ? That their greed threatens the sport in Europe, with a breakaway league that will be pushed again in the future. . That some owners are using clubs to sports wash or enhance their profile for non football reasons. Why shouldn't the sport change its rules to protect itself such a hostile threat ?

If the Government and football authorities changed the rules on ownership retrospectively, its hard to see how that will be a bad thing for the sport. If its good for the majority, who cares about the glazers or more insidious owners pumping money into teams? Most of us think it prob wont change because the horse has bolted and no doubt these owners wouldn't allow things to change without a fight. .

These business people consider themselves above the interest of the greater good. Their financial strength allows them to override the desires of the majority because of a closed shop capitalist system that suits itself. It wants freedom when it suits and bailouts/changes when it suits.

Its not that I think retrospective action would be bad 100%.

I just struggle to think the government would be able to, in the end, tell Glazers, FSG, Abramovic, Abu Dhabi that either (1) you have to devalue your asset holding by 50%, giving a new bunch of shares to fans or (2) force them to put 50% up for sale (which may also go to institutional investors).

How far do you think they get before they have so many court cases shoved up? We are talking Billions of pounds of value for these top clubs.

The FA/PL could bring in sanction regulations that would effectively stop ESL type break aways.
The FA/PL could bring in regulation that could attempt to stop leveraged buy outs going forward (could form part of the approval process)

I would imagine someone (government/FA) could try to push through something that would place fan representation at board level and also put in place regulations around fan forum engagement - imagine this would have to be done via discussions with the clubs to find agreeable solutions rather than just trying to impose it.

There are things I think can be done to bring fans into the picture more - that we well short of 50+1 models.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Its not that I think retrospective action would be bad 100%.

I just struggle to think the government would be able to, in the end, tell Glazers, FSG, Abramovic, Abu Dhabi that either (1) you have to devalue your asset holding by 50%, giving a new bunch of shares to fans or (2) force them to put 50% up for sale (which may also go to institutional investors).

How far do you think they get before they have so many court cases shoved up? We are talking Billions of pounds of value for these top clubs.

The FA/PL could bring in sanction regulations that would effectively stop ESL type break aways.
The FA/PL could bring in regulation that could attempt to stop leveraged buy outs going forward (could form part of the approval process)

I would imagine someone (government/FA) could try to push through something that would place fan representation at board level and also put in place regulations around fan forum engagement - imagine this would have to be done via discussions with the clubs to find agreeable solutions rather than just trying to impose it.

There are things I think can be done to bring fans into the picture more - that we well short of 50+1 models.

I’d agree with that, I wasn’t suggesting it would be easy , but it all depends on how far the authorities want to take it. Political will can do anything with the right motivation but I’m not sure there is the Hunger to go to extremes for the issues you highlight.

My point was that governments , authorities and Industry's will change the rules whenever it suits themselves.

Whatsisname

Just grabbed a ticket for SAF's film with a Q+A afterwards with him at the end of May.

StringerBell

The Big Easy wrote: »

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/12297427/man-utd-protest-ole-gunnar-solskjaer-says-violent-incidents-went-too-far-but-wants-club-to-listen-to-supporters


Fair enough again from Ole I think.

He's in a tough position and think he's handling it very well, managing not to alienate either side. He's effectively bang in the middle of the whole thing.

Whatever people think of Ole as a tactician or coach, he certainly possesses soft skills that enable him to get on well with players, owners and supporters.

"They listen to me and they do listen to the fans. I'm"

For that part alone I assume Ole is a disgrace?

Mitch Connor

StringerBell wrote: »

"They listen to me and they do listen to the fans. I'm"

For that part alone I assume Ole is a disgrace?

in general I thought he handled it well, but some of his answers wrankle - such as saying the Glazers do listen to fans, when there is zero evidence to support it.

I suppose he does just say they listen. You can listen and simply not care at all about what you are hearing or who is saying it.

beakerjoe

Whatsisname wrote: »

Just grabbed a ticket for SAF's film with a Q+A afterwards with him at the end of May.

Where?

Whatsisname

beakerjoe wrote: »

Where?

In the Vue Printworks in Manchester.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

in general I thought he handled it well, but some of his answers wrankle - such as saying the Glazers do listen to fans, when there is zero evidence to support it.

I suppose he does just say they listen. You can listen and simply not care at all about what you are hearing or who is saying it.

Even SAF didn’t come out publicly against the Glazers, I think it’s unreasonable to expect Ole to be anything other then diplomatic

Ole has to walk a very fine line on this , I would not be holding his public comments (that may not represent his personal sentiments) against him.

Lithium93_

Whatsisname wrote: »

Just grabbed a ticket for SAF's film with a Q+A afterwards with him at the end of May.

Whatsisname wrote: »

In the Vue Printworks in Manchester.

Being part of an in person Q+A with the man himself, I've never been so envious.

Hococop

I see some fans are going after the sponsors now and destroying the ratings on trust pilot and othe ones

The Big Easy

Drumpot wrote: »

Even SAF didn’t come out publicly against the Glazers, I think it’s unreasonable to expect Ole to be anything other then diplomatic

Ole has to walk a very fine line on this , I would not be holding his public comments (that may not represent his personal sentiments) against him.

And he's pretty good at finding that line and striking the right chord imo

Lord TSC

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1389988429052715008?s=19

Three games in five days :S

Damien360

This is scary stuff. I knew it was bad but good god that is shocking destruction of a club

[url] https://mobile.twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1389458677061591042[/url][url][/url]

Lithium93_

https://twitter.com/UtdDistrict/status/1389992018651328513

Lithium93_

Lord TSC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1389988429052715008?s=19

Three games in five days :S

Good thing the 2nd leg against Roma is only a formality.

paulbok

Lord TSC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1389988429052715008?s=19

Three games in five days :S

#willdonnygetastart?

Mantis Toboggan

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Good thing the 2nd leg against Roma is only a formality.

You'd hope so but anything is possible.

Lithium93_

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

You'd hope so but anything is possible.

Surely they'll avoiding collapsing a la Barcelona in the Champions League 2 seasons ago.

All_in_Flynn

Very hard to see how this Roma side can stop us scoring. They'll have to have a go which will play right into our hands. Hopefully a goal or 2 before the half hour mark to kill the game early.

The Big Easy

Lord TSC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1389988429052715008?s=19

Three games in five days :S

That's our punishment then obviously! :P :pac:

wanderer100

Jeez 3 games in 5 days is ridiculous

Heavy rotation is a must now. With the Europa league final on the 26th, we got to be very careful to avoid any injuries next week.

We better see Donny, Mata, Matic, Telles, Bailly, Tuanzebe, Williams, Diallo all get plenty of minutes next week

pjohnson

Ah sure we might get 2 of those 3 cancelled again. Be grand.

Whatsisname

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Being part of an in person Q+A with the man himself, I've never been so envious.

I've bumped into Tuanzebe and Mata since living here and didn't know what to do either time so just looked at them in awe from a distance so I'll probably just freeze being in the same room as SAF :pac:

pjohnson

Whatsisname wrote: »

I've bumped into Tuanzebe and Mata since living here and didn't know what to do either time so just looked at them in awe from a distance so I'll probably just freeze being in the same room as SAF :pac:

Lithium93_

Whatsisname wrote: »

I've bumped into Tuanzebe and Mata since living here and didn't know what to do either time so just looked at them in awe from a distance so I'll probably just freeze being in the same room as SAF :pac:

To be fair, I think any Manchester United supporter would freeze being in the same room as Sir Alex Ferguson. Assuming after the Q+A he sticks around, you got to at least try and snag the man's autograph.

Mars Bar

Lithium93_ wrote: »

To be fair, I think any Manchester United supporter would freeze being in the same room as Sir Alex Ferguson. Assuming after the Q+A he sticks around, you got to at least try and snag the man's autograph.

Would be very surprised if anyone is allowed near him. Covid regulations

Lithium93_

Mars Bar wrote: »

Would be very surprised if anyone is allowed near him. Covid regulations

Momentary brain fart in forgetting those.

jayo26

Mars Bar wrote: »

Would be very surprised if anyone is allowed near him. Covid regulations

Throw a pen and paper at him. Straight in the forehead.

StringerBell

Mitch Connor wrote: »

in general I thought he handled it well, but some of his answers wrankle - such as saying the Glazers do listen to fans, when there is zero evidence to support it.

I suppose he does just say they listen. You can listen and simply not care at all about what you are hearing or who is saying it.

I have no issue with it - what else would you expect from him? What more can he say he's in a tough spot

Poking fun is all at some of the other reactions to peoples comments.

Your Airbag

So Chelsea or City to win a CL title. Not much of a choice but I'll take Chelsea as that duck has already been broken.

The Big Easy

Your Airbag wrote: »

So Chelsea or City to win a CL title. Not much of a choice but I'll take Chelsea as that duck has already been broken.

Hard choice, two would be only one less than us though