Why Didn't the Supporters...?

[Elwood]

From what I've read, there are 28,000 members of the Shareholders United organization. And from what I can tell, these people have been wholeheartedly against the Glazer takeover since it was first mentioned.

(Please correct me if the above is incorrect)

Now, doing some calculations, at 3 pounds per share, it would have been around 66 million shares in the hands of people against a Glazer takeover to prevent the takeover from ever happening (that would be just over 25%, which, using the 790 million pound figure, divided by 3 - price paid per share - yields 263.33 million shares, divided by 4, yields 65.833 million shares, so 66 million shares is more than 25%).

So, 66 million shares, at 3 pounds each, is a total of 198 million pounds to own just over 25%. Now, if the 28k is accurate, that would be 7,072 pounds per member of Shareholders United to acquire enough to prevent Glazer from getting 75%+1.

Now that may seem like quite a bit of cash per SU member, and it is. But I also get the impression that not everyone who's against the Glazer takeover is an SU member, so there are more than the 28k.

My question is, was there a concerted effort by those against Glazer to purchase enough shares to 100% prevent the possibility of a takeover?

Do many of you MU fans that post here regularly own shares?

Is it hard to purchase shares?

It just seems like that the possibility of any takeover has been in existance for about 14 years, and the Glazer news has been around for a few months, at least. So was anything specifically done, either by individuals, or larger groups, to work towards acquiring the necessary shares to prevent the possibility of a takeover by Glazer?

Just curious.

[prk166]

Well, you did the math. I think you've answered your question. Even if their are 10 times the number of fans out there to purchase shares as with SU, you're still looking at them shelling out $1500 / apiece. And for what? An investment in a club? How many of those supporters even buy a new kit each and every year? That's a lot of money.

And at that, it would only keep someone from taking the company private. They could still have a majority stake and more or less run the show.

[Elwood]

I guess what I'm really wondering is if any of the supporters of the club did anything other than "protest"?

Protesting surely tells people how you feel, but doesn't actually DO anything (usually).

But if those same protestors were also, at the same time, spending a little less on new shirts, tickets, travel expenses, etc, and using that cash to buy up a few shares a week, it would have been something PROACTIVE (even if ultimately futile), instead of simply reactive (venting in public and on internet messageboards).

I'm wondering what % of those who are against the Glazer bid spend 7k or more pounds on MU-related expenses each year.