Not sure how this "where was the outrage when they were winning titles?" narrative has proliferated so widely, but: Graeme Souness "United fans weren't protesting against The Glazers when they were winning"#GlazersOut protest in 2010. pic.twitter.com/X8GMLb2E4Q— Man Utd: ThroughTheLens (@ManUnitedLens) May 2, 2021 Generally speaking, if you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Alexi Lalas, it's usually worth digging a little deeper.
Right, I covered that later on down in my post..... That's great that they protested, however, they still gave their money to the Glazers. I get it. It's a shitty spot to be in. If those same fans give up their season pases, someone else will buy them. They're protest didn't gain them anything, and in turn still put money in the Glazer's pockets.
It's the one thing these "fan protests" fail to grasp. The literal only thing folks like the Glazers/et al get, is money. Yeah y'all wore the green/yellow and made signs back when you were winning trophies still, but you also continued to be at the top of the attendance figures/bought the kits/gobbled up concessions/forked out the dough - and spoke the only langue they comprehend .... and told them the only thing that matters. You can tell me to ******** right off, insult my mom, and knock over the pot on my porch as you hand me a crisp 100$ bill every Saturday. Guess what I'm going to care about ... Here's the other part ... https://medium.com/@chrscaio/a-brand-analysis-manchester-united-fc-c41b707db5ae READ that, and take in what it's actually saying and spells out about the truth of the club ... even well before the Glazers.
The Glazers raised hundreds of millions to buy the club then saddled the club with the debt while raking off hundreds of millions in dividends. And they'll probably make another $billion when they sell it. Football owners don't do this in the UK. It's OK for an owner to appoint themselves CEO and take a salary or make a small profit, or make a ton of money when you sell the club but what the Glazers have done is completely unethical by admittedly low British football standards. I don't like Manchester United, I don't like most of their fans but even more I hate what the Glazers have done.
I'd also point out that the core of that team was at the club before the Glazers acquired their shares.
I think, so long as the fans keep buying tickets, merchandise and the like, people like the Glazers couldn't care less about the ethics of the situation. Rich people only care about ethics if their supposed ethical lapses hurt their bottom line.
The other football owners haven't done what the Glazers have done YET. The Glazers are the majority shareholders in Manchester United, which is a publically traded commodity/company on the stock exchange. As shareholders, the Glazers can take dividends. That's what investors and shareholders do!!! If we were talking about a non-sporting business, nobody would care that the investors are earning/taking dividends on their investment. Because it's a Football Club it's suddenly an issue? Perhaps Manchester United's Supporters Trust shouldn't have placed the club on the stock exchange, and then put in rules stating that if a shareholder had x or greater shares in the club they had to purchase the majority of the Club????
I know it was a shit show including the two owners falling out between themselves, but wasn't one of the reasons that Gillett and Hicks ran back across the Atlantic with their tails between their legs the incessant fan protests against their ownership? As for the Glazers, it was essentially a leveraged buyout that Premier League rules ought to prevent, but don't.
Let's "dig a little deeper" Wasn't FC United of Manchester founded solely because of Glazer's (American) takeover of the club by a small subset of disenchanted Manchester United supporters? But hey, a niche of rabid followers taking a displeasure of Glazer or anything American makes sense once the club will eventually sell itself to a Kremlin-oligrach or a Petrostate sheik.
I don't see why you should give up your team because you don't like the owners. If anything you should double down on your support. And there are 100k people on the season ticket waiting list at Old Trafford, so if you give it up for one season you've pretty much given it up for life.
10% of the club's shares are publicly traded on NYSE. The Glazers own half of them. The London stock was delisted in 2005.
So, the Glazers aren't that bad? It seems like it's a pretty small subset of the fanbase that's annoyed at them (or, annoyed enough to engage in even a symbolic gesture of protest).
Over 1,000 fans showed up for the protest. That's nearly every United fan within 100 miles of Manchester. I think that the protests will grow but on the other hand there's nothing in English law or EPL that prevents a leveraged buyout, or as its also called "asset stripping". To give an example, in 2020 United’s net debt increased by £127.4m to £429.1m while the Glazers shared dividends of £18M. The dividends are coming from the loans the family took out to buy the club which Manchester United have to repay.
I think the fans "get it" a lot more than you give them credit for. And this specifically was designed to do exactly what you are advocating hitting them in the pocketbook. It wasn't an accident that they chose the biggest match of the year to try and get cancelled. Yeh, whether you like it or not fans see their clubs/teams as more than just "another business", and while that is naïve it's also the only way sports functions. If we could all magically switch our brains and treat our sports teams the same as any other brand then the entire professional sports industry would collapse overnight. Not sure of the exact percentages but every United Supporter I know on both sides of the Atlantic want the Glazers out. And as I keep saying the fans aren't stupid, they realize that it is likely that the a new owner could be worse for other reasons like having an affinity for bonesaws. That's why they aren't only asking for the Glazers out but for a whole rethink of how the club is owned and run. Is that likely? Probably not but they have hit their breaking point and want something to change. Peaceful protests and boycotts haven't worked so try something more aggressive.
There were very active protests and a boycott of official merchandise but at the end of the day I don't know how much impact it had. The biggest factor was the ramifications from the 2008 financial meltdown. Although one specific area I can point to is pressuring the banks. Royal Bank of Scotland turned off the credit spigot after pressure from Liverpool Fans which helped tighten the vice and limited the cowboys' options. This is something I have been wondering for a while, and is probably where the focus needs to be. I am not a financial expert but it seems reasonable to require clubs to open their books in order to be allowed to play in the prem, the championship, and even further down. Feels like it would both help with vulture owners coming in and using a club as daddy's credit card, and would stabilize the lower divisions because you could put in rules about fanacial health.
I think most EPL clubs books are open. All companies file their annual reports at Companies House. I can confirm that two idiots that my team's fans elected to run the club in 2007 allegedly managed to hide losses and their successors were total con men.
The vast majority of sports teams in Europe are still member-owned clubs. As I said before this was the case in British football until the late 50s, early 60s. Fans still feel that clubs belong to their communities, even though they may not technically have a stake. Of course, they're only too happy when a new owner comes along promising to bankroll them to a higher division but they still expect to be treated with respect.
10k, I believe. Maybe they laid on buses from London? As I pointed out, there's nothing to prevent it. But if Boris Johnson does follow through on an inquiry into football governance, I suspect this is one thing that will come to the fore - and may get legislated on.
Well, it's one promise Bojo can easily keep with about no one in the UK/England against it. The only ones he pisses off are the foreign owners and some posters in here.
It's noticeable that there have been no protests to my knowledge at Man United's noisy neighbours. Personally, I don't care what nationality my club's owners are. But I certainly would care if they did a Glazer and continually used them as a vehicle to borrow against. Or if they took the lead on the formation of a cartel league. Of course, the latter is moot.
They got lucky with the timing of the ESL announcement. If that hadn't just happened then this wouldn't have ... and that's part of my point.
Sadly, protests against the Glazers will achieve nothing. They aren't at the games. They probably don't even watch the games. These protests will have no impact. What they probably need to do, other than not buying tickets and merchandise, is ruin the "brand". Make it an organisation sponsors and other corporate types don't want to be associated with. As long as Manchester United remain a good investment, they will stay. If it seems beneficial to sell, they'll sell.