Topic: Mancs away 13/5 if their fans permit it

[Eeyore]

Wait, didn't one of them announce in early March he was selling a shed load?

Avram Glazer put 5 million class A shares up for sale but that was when the price had gone up to $20.

[CraigDS]

Avram Glazer put 5 million class A shares up for sale but was when the price had gone up to $20.

Where's this info of them buying shares prior (and after I assume) to "prop up the share price"?

[El Lobo]

Were the Glazers laughing when the game was called off. Will the Glazers be laughing when fans are back in Stadiums and protesting.

Probably were

[Eeyore]

Where's this info of them buying shares prior (and after I assume) to "prop up the share price"?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-utd-share-price-glazers-17941855

“Until there is a big capital expenditure project at Old Trafford I don’t see any problems for the club. I think it was noticeable last Thursday that the Glazers filed that the club itself would try and support the share price, they were trying to set aside up to $35m to buy back shares from the market to prop up the share price.”

[cormorant]

Wolfie Neville


https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/16/gary-neville-defends-glazer-family-criticism-manchester-united-fans-11166738/


Gary Neville admits he will never protest against the Glazer family and their ownership of Manchester United.

The Glazers took control of United as part of a £790 million takeover in 2005 but the club have been saddled with a huge debt ever since.

United supporters are now urging the Glazer family to sell following the club’s decline during their reign.

But Neville believes that new owners could provide even more problems for United.

‘Are they the worst owners in football? No. Are they the best? No,’ Neville said in an interview with The Times.

‘My biggest problem with the Glazer family over the past seven years is the campaign 2004-06 where Manchester United weren’t successful, Arsene Wenger came in with the Invincibles [Arsenal], Jose [Mourinho] came in [at Chelsea], that’s when there was a real hostility.

‘All of a sudden in 2006 to 2012, where we were getting to three in four Champions League finals, and winning trophies, it went quiet.

‘Then in 2014-15 when we started to get into a period of non-success again, it builds up again.

‘The idea of screaming about the Glazers every ten minutes, saying they are not good owners, doesn’t get us anywhere.

‘I’d love owners that pump every penny back into the club on to the pitch, that didn’t take out £20 million a year, or whatever they take out in debt against the club.

‘But I can’t do anything about it. Just stand there and campaign and whinge? Stand on the front of Old Trafford in front of Best, Law and Charlton with my placard up saying ‘Glazers out?’

‘I’m not going to do that because I haven’t got the solution.’

He's a fuckwit. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. He can take his faux socialism and shove it. He's just like the rest of them. Takes his pay cheque from Sky and worries that the big drip-drip might stop. Ain't heard either him, or Carragher for that matter, mentioning about how fans can hurt owners in the pocket by boycotting club sponsors.

[Bobinhood]

You must have hero status over on redcaf.

well thats a bit harsh  al has been warning that money is stealing and ruining the game for a long time, he must feel like Cassandra (who knew the truth but was never believed) and then the super league fiasco happened and for a brief shining moment all voices rose as one "fuck you, money thats too far now" and so he wants to strike while the iron is hot in terms of getting some fan empowerment in there.

In that context the drunken manc louts inadvertently struck a blow or kept the momentum going or the pot boiling or whatever you want to call it. Many of us ( i think rightly) question their motivations and sincerity, but notwithstanding that they did get get the game cancelled which is possibly incremental.

so im a bit in als camp, i completely disagree that the manc fans were anything other than a drunken mob looking for a party, but otoh im not really horrified by that weve all been locked up forever, and then on a completely separate level with government outrage mumblings and massive fan discontent and so on, hes right now is the best opportunity for some kind of significant something somehow towards reform in decades. in ever.

the fan groups should get together pronto, and the best pressure point i see to start with govt wise is the agent fees because even the teams/owners would get on board with that and its a thin edge of a wedge type move. Rioala as the only opponent is good politics if i ever saw it   

the must demand list though, that not likely to accomplish much of anything its just virtue signalling really, or complaint airing or idk but we might need to start from the assumption that billionaires looking to double their net worth are not going to give it all away just to be nice instead.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

well thats a bit harsh  al has been warning that money is stealing and ruining the game for a long time, he must feel like Cassandra (who knew the truth but was never believed) and then the super league fiasco happened and for a brief shining moment all voices rose as one "fuck you, money thats too far now" and so he wants to strike while the iron is hot in terms of getting some fan empowerment in there.

In that context the drunken manc louts inadvertently struck a blow or kept the momentum going or the pot boiling or whatever you want to call it. Many of us ( i think rightly) question their motivations and sincerity, but notwithstanding that they did get get the game cancelled which is possibly incremental.

so im a bit in als camp, i completely disagree that the manc fans were anything other than a drunken mob looking for a party, but otoh im not really horrified by that weve all been locked up forever, and then on a completely separate level with government outrage mumblings and massive fan discontent and so on, hes right now is the best opportunity for some kind of significant something somehow towards reform in decades. in ever.

the fan groups should get together pronto, and the best pressure point i see to start with govt wise is the agent fees because even the teams/owners would get on board with that and its a thin edge of a wedge type move. Rioala as the only opponent is good politics if i ever saw it   

the must demand list though, that not likely to accomplish much of anything its just virtue signalling really, or complaint airing or idk but we might need to start from the assumption that billionaires looking to double their net worth are not going to give it all away just to be nice instead.

This is just crazy.

It's like people don't know the Premier League exists.

[Red Raw]

I am sure it has been said (in many and better ways) but regardless of the protesters' motives, unless the match is abandoned and the points are awarded to us so we can resume with planning and training for our remaining fixtures, I am struggling to see a disincentive for any opportunist with a grievance to trash any game when it suits.

Rescheduling due to the behaviour of fans and the failure of the club to deal with it sets a terrible precident.

[Alan_X]

Good post especially the bolded.

It's a dreadful post.

People don't like it when they think protests are getting out of hand and it's no coincidence that we've been told all our lives that people like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi are global icons, whilst the necessary violence that underpinned and accelerated their political movements is always ignored.

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were expressly against violence.

Satyagraha, (Sanskrit and Hindi: “holding onto truth”) concept introduced in the early 20th century by Mahatma Gandhi to designate a determined but nonviolent resistance to evil. Gandhi’s satyagraha became a major tool in the Indian struggle against British imperialism and has since been adopted by protest groups in other countries.

As a theologian, Martin Luther King reflected often on his understanding of nonviolence. He described his own “pilgrimage to nonviolence” in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom, and in subsequent books and articles. “True pacifism,” or “nonviolent resistance,” King wrote, is “a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love” (King, Stride, 80). Both “morally and practically” committed to nonviolence, King believed that “the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (King, Stride, 79; Papers 5:422).

[Crosby Nick]

I am sure it has been said (in many and better ways) but regardless of the protesters' motives, unless the match is abandoned and the points are awarded to us so we can resume with planning and training for our remaining fixtures, I am struggling to see a disincentive for any opportunist with a grievance to trash any game when it suits.

Rescheduling due to the behaviour of fans and the failure of the club to deal with it sets a terrible precident.

I’m hoping it’s they don’t want City to be ‘handed’ the league like this. When do they next play? Maybe something will be announced after that although I wouldn’t hold my breath.

[reddebs]

Part of that rise though was the Glazers buying back shares from the market to prop up their share price.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-utd-share-price-glazers-17941855

“Until there is a big capital expenditure project at Old Trafford I don’t see any problems for the club. I think it was noticeable last Thursday that the Glazers filed that the club itself would try and support the share price, they were trying to set aside up to $35m to buy back shares from the market to prop up the share price.”

Think your timings a little out there Al.

The share increase up from $13 to $20 happened in the last 6mths but the article about them buying to prop up the price is from over 12mths ago.

[Eeyore]

I think we should look at the positives. A couple of weeks ago no one would have envisaged the big six doing an u-turn in a matter of days over the ESL. No one would have envisaged fans stopping one of the biggest games on the planet. No one would have envisaged Chelsea having fan representatives at board meetings. Then we have Billy Hogan meeting representatives from SoS.

[Eeyore]

Think your timings a little out there Al.

The share increase up from $13 to $20 happened in the last 6mths but the article about them buying to prop up the price is from over 12mths ago.

Yeh you are right thanks for that.

[Bobinhood]

This is just crazy.

It's like people don't know the Premier League exists.

What do you mean? Im not sure i completely understand the connection between my sanity and the Premier league's existence, although for sure there is a pretty strong one 

do you mean that fans should apply reform pressure to the Prem rather than the govt?  ok, sure, i was just noting that the govt got itself involved for the first time based on the popular outrage at the esl proposal, so if your purpose is to claw back some control from billionaire owners that's a good club to use. A threat of legislation of whatever pro fan purpose would perk up the glazers ears a good deal more than that must letter did.

All im really saying is that it is no doubt a good time for fan groups to collectively stand up and be heard by anyone who will listen and has the power to do something positive. and, insofar as thats the point Al is trying to make, i agree with him.

[JP-65]

Yeh you are right thanks for that.

United are a severely underperforming asset.  Essentially has gone sideways for 8 years while the S&P has grown 273% during this timeframe.

The ESL was their roll of the dice to goose the asset value. 

They will do well in real terms when they bail, but in relative value they'd have been much better selling out a few years ago and investing their money in other vehicles.....sort of like their Florida buddy Trump.

[Alan_X]

United's share price has dropped by nearly 2% over the last few days.

What does that have to do with anything? They're Class A shares with minimal voting rights. The Glazer IPO valued the shares at $14 so they're stable if not a great investment. And the whole point of those shares is that they were sold by the Glazers to raise cash from outside investors. If the value of those shares has dropped it means absolutely fuck all to the Glazer family - just a potential paper loss for the suckers who bought the shares.

While we're talking about IPOs, the original IPO in 1991 was of 1.2million shares at a total price of £10m to finanace ground improvements. It was a flop and half the shares went unsold. The share price dropped to £2 from £8.33 by the late 90s. Thirty years ago the club was sitting there ready and waiting for some group to buy up the club.

Thats the thing about shares - they go up and down. The value at any one moment is irrelevant unless you need to buy or sell them. And the reality is that the important shares, the ones that the Glazers hold with the voting rights are not for sale and they have no need to sell them. Remember the Red Knights?

Man Utd: Red Knights takeover attempt shelved

2 June 2010

The Red Knights group of wealthy supporters mulling a takeover of Manchester United has put plans to make a bid for the club on hold.

The group said media speculation of "inflated valuation aspirations" had hampered its plans.

It added that it had always maintained it would only pay a sensible price for Manchester United.

Last week, United reiterated it was not for sale and that the Glazer family owners would not listen to offers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10212982

If the Glazers decide to sell they'll decide the price unless there's a massive collapse in football generally.

[Alan_X]

I think we should look at the positives. A couple of weeks ago no one would have envisaged the big six doing an u-turn in a matter of days over the ESL. No one would have envisaged fans stopping one of the biggest games on the planet. No one would have envisaged Chelsea having fan representatives at board meetings. Then we have Billy Hogan meeting representatives from SoS.

Maybe I'm just cynical but this is what Chelsea are doing:

...the selected fans will not have voting rights and will be excluded from “meetings relating to players, staff, the Academy and related matters”. They will attend approximately four meetings per year...

And I bet they aren't on the board of Fordstam Limited - that's the company that owns the various Chelsea companies and is run by Abramovich. It's good PR and will no doubt give Chelsea a bit of insight into what supporters are thnking. It will also head off calls for 50+1.

[Eeyore]

Maybe I'm just cynical but this is what Chelsea are doing:

And I bet they aren't on the board of Fordstam Limited - that's the company that owns the various Chelsea companies and is run by Abramovich. It's good PR and will no doubt give Chelsea a bit of insight into what supporters are thnking. It will also head off calls for 50+1.

It puts pressure on other owners to follow suit though Al. As I said earlier this would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago.

[JP-65]

Maybe I'm just cynical but this is what Chelsea are doing:

And I bet they aren't on the board of Fordstam Limited - that's the company that owns the various Chelsea companies and is run by Abramovich. It's good PR and will no doubt give Chelsea a bit of insight into what supporters are thnking. It will also head off calls for 50+1.

There's no PL owner more politically savvy than RA, that's why he's still alive 

[Eeyore]

What does that have to do with anything? They're Class A shares with minimal voting rights. The Glazer IPO valued the shares at $14 so they're stable if not a great investment. And the whole point of those shares is that they were sold by the Glazers to raise cash from outside investors. If the value of those shares has dropped it means absolutely fuck all to the Glazer family - just a potential paper loss for the suckers who bought the shares.

While we're talking about IPOs, the original IPO in 1991 was of 1.2million shares at a total price of £10m to finanace ground improvements. It was a flop and half the shares went unsold. The share price dropped to £2 from £8.33 by the late 90s. Thirty years ago the club was sitting there ready and waiting for some group to buy up the club.

Thats the thing about shares - they go up and down. The value at any one moment is irrelevant unless you need to buy or sell them. And the reality is that the important shares, the ones that the Glazers hold with the voting rights are not for sale and they have no need to sell them. Remember the Red Knights?

Man Utd: Red Knights takeover attempt shelved

2 June 2010

The Red Knights group of wealthy supporters mulling a takeover of Manchester United has put plans to make a bid for the club on hold.

The group said media speculation of "inflated valuation aspirations" had hampered its plans.

It added that it had always maintained it would only pay a sensible price for Manchester United.

Last week, United reiterated it was not for sale and that the Glazer family owners would not listen to offers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10212982

If the Glazers decide to sell they'll decide the price unless there's a massive collapse in football generally.

The Glazers also owned class A shares though Al.

[Eeyore]

There's no PL owner more politically savvy than RA, that's why he's still alive 

It puts pressure on FSG to do the same though. I am sure that SOS will bring it up in the meeting with Hogan.

[CraigDS]

It puts pressure on other owners to follow suit though Al. As I said earlier this would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago.

It’s not unthinkable though.

We’ve had fan reps who the club have spoken to previously to judge opinion, and they put Dalglish on there as a voice of the fans.

At least the latter above actually has a vote, the former is just the same as what Chelsea are proposing save for a slight difference in that they’ll sit in on select meetings (which will be carefully selected I’m sure).

[Eeyore]

It’s not unthinkable though.

We’ve had fan reps who the club have spoken to previously to judge opinion, and they put Dalglish on there as a voice of the fans.

At least the latter above actually has a vote, the former is just the same as what Chelsea are proposing save for a slight difference in that they’ll sit in on select meetings (which will be carefully selected I’m sure).

The fan representatives did not have a seat at board meetings. Personally I think it is a foot in the door.

[CraigDS]

The fan representatives did not have a seat at board meetings.

Yes, I said that.

Personally I think it is a foot in the door.

It would be clubs offering what they’re happy with whilst this all blows over, a manageable fan at board meetings (not to be confused with seat on the board) of their choosing, hearing what they choose, and having no vote.

[4pool]

Going to be more protests down Old Trafford way if City win the CL along with the League and their League Cup win for a treble...

[Dave McCoy]

Maybe I'm just cynical but this is what Chelsea are doing:

And I bet they aren't on the board of Fordstam Limited - that's the company that owns the various Chelsea companies and is run by Abramovich. It's good PR and will no doubt give Chelsea a bit of insight into what supporters are thnking. It will also head off calls for 50+1.

As I said in the 50+1 thread when Chelsea announced this I would expect the other 5 to follow suit by the end of the week and nothing else to change.  Pretty dreadful but then talking about actual things that could help is a no go since you'd have to give something to those "greedy Americans". 

[mickeydocs]

It’s not unthinkable though.

We’ve had fan reps who the club have spoken to previously to judge opinion, and they put Dalglish on there as a voice of the fans.

At least the latter above actually has a vote, the former is just the same as what Chelsea are proposing save for a slight difference in that they’ll sit in on select meetings (which will be carefully selected I’m sure).

Yet they didn't consult Kenny on their proposals for the ESL. Who did FSG consult regarding furlough?

[killer-heels]

Yet they didn't consult Kenny on their proposals for the ESL. Who did FSG consult regarding furlough?

Their accountants?

[Eeyore]

Yes, I said that.

It would be clubs offering what they’re happy with whilst this all blows over, a manageable fan at board meetings (not to be confused with seat on the board) of their choosing, hearing what they choose, and having no vote.

It is move in the right direction though mate.

[Mumm-Ra]

It's a dreadful post.

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were expressly against violence.

Satyagraha, (Sanskrit and Hindi: “holding onto truth”) concept introduced in the early 20th century by Mahatma Gandhi to designate a determined but nonviolent resistance to evil. Gandhi’s satyagraha became a major tool in the Indian struggle against British imperialism and has since been adopted by protest groups in other countries.

As a theologian, Martin Luther King reflected often on his understanding of nonviolence. He described his own “pilgrimage to nonviolence” in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom, and in subsequent books and articles. “True pacifism,” or “nonviolent resistance,” King wrote, is “a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love” (King, Stride, 80). Both “morally and practically” committed to nonviolence, King believed that “the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (King, Stride, 79; Papers 5:422).

You say it's a dreadful post but you were making pretty much the exact same argument as Koplass on page 77 of the BLM thread.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

What do you mean? Im not sure i completely understand the connection between my sanity and the Premier league's existence, although for sure there is a pretty strong one 

do you mean that fans should apply reform pressure to the Prem rather than the govt?  ok, sure, i was just noting that the govt got itself involved for the first time based on the popular outrage at the esl proposal, so if your purpose is to claw back some control from billionaire owners that's a good club to use. A threat of legislation of whatever pro fan purpose would perk up the glazers ears a good deal more than that must letter did.

All im really saying is that it is no doubt a good time for fan groups to collectively stand up and be heard by anyone who will listen and has the power to do something positive. and, insofar as thats the point Al is trying to make, i agree with him.

I don't think anyone will listen mate - why would they.

All I can see happening is the magic money tree of football getting moved around from one group of rich people to another.


We're about 100 years too late to think that Footy isn't a commercial business.

[kennedy81]

I think we should look at the positives. A couple of weeks ago no one would have envisaged the big six doing an u-turn in a matter of days over the ESL. No one would have envisaged fans stopping one of the biggest games on the planet. No one would have envisaged Chelsea having fan representatives at board meetings. Then we have Billy Hogan meeting representatives from SoS.

The ESL thing had u-turn written all over it as soon as it was announced. It was a complete non-starter because there was no real plan in place to begin with. The way the whole thing was put together and presented to the world, with their shite website and Perez's mad interviews on Spanish tv, was just farcical.   
And the effect the fan anger had on it being scrapped has been vastly over played. The real power fans have is in their wallet, if they ever had the good sense to use it.

[CraigDS]

Yet they didn't consult Kenny on their proposals for the ESL. Who did FSG consult regarding furlough?

And nor would they whoever the fan is. That’s my point.

[CraigDS]

It is move in the right direction though mate.

I mean yeah, sure, but it’s not really anything more than lip service. And it’s lip service which has been done before.

[Koplass]

It's a dreadful post.

Martin Luther King and Ghandi were expressly against violence.

Satyagraha, (Sanskrit and Hindi: “holding onto truth”) concept introduced in the early 20th century by Mahatma Gandhi to designate a determined but nonviolent resistance to evil. Gandhi’s satyagraha became a major tool in the Indian struggle against British imperialism and has since been adopted by protest groups in other countries.

As a theologian, Martin Luther King reflected often on his understanding of nonviolence. He described his own “pilgrimage to nonviolence” in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom, and in subsequent books and articles. “True pacifism,” or “nonviolent resistance,” King wrote, is “a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love” (King, Stride, 80). Both “morally and practically” committed to nonviolence, King believed that “the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (King, Stride, 79; Papers 5:422).

I don't know if you understood my 'dreadful' post. I'm fully aware that Gandhi and King were nonviolent, my point being that it's no coincidence that we're told that these are global icons who propelled two political causes almost single-handedly to victory. The truth, of course, is that the Indian fight for independence also involved insurrections, assassinations and terrorism and the black civil rights movement had leaders like Malcolm X and Fred Hampton who have been scrubbed from the virtuous version of US history. The people with the power to dictate the narrative sweep those stories under the carpet in favour of the idea that non-violent protest is the only legitimate form of protest.

And you can see that in people's reactions to anything that is a little bit more extreme. People were frothing at the mouth all summer when private property was being damaged by BLM protesters. I've lost count of the amount of times I saw somebody say "can't they find a better way to protest?!" or "they're not getting my support now". People have been conditioned to believe that quietly walking down a street holding a placard is the only moral way to protest. You can't lie in the road and obstruct traffic, you can't go on strike and interrupt someone's commute to work, you can't tear down a statue in the town centre, you can't kneel down when the national anthem's playing, you can't postpone a game of football...

I've been on a million peaceful protests so I'm not saying they have no place or can't contribute toward change but I'm also experienced enough to know that they often bear no fruit. It's the sad reality of trying to change the minds of people in power. United's fans have peacefully protested for years and it hasn't changed anything for them.

[DonkeyWan]

Here's a simple question to ask United fans supporting the event on Sunday.

Why not go through the courts like Liverpool?

The answer is obvious: because they wouldn't succeed. That's the root cause of the criticism here, the validity of the action and legitimacy of those taking it.

I have read some on here arguing that violent insurrection is the only way results will be had. I mean, that obviously ignores the positive results Liverpool themselves have had through non-violent confrontation. It's also a bit rich to compare the drunken stumblings of outraged football fans, angry at a badly run business, to political leaders like Gandhi, seeking national freedom from imperial oppression.

One other point to note: according to United fans on social media, even if Liverpool v MUFC is rescheduled, they still intend to disrupt that too.

[johnybarnes]

https://spiritofshankly.com/first-meeting-with-lfc-board-representatives/

[Son of Spion]

Here's a simple question to ask United fans supporting the event on Sunday.

Why not go through the courts like Liverpool?

The answer is obvious: because they wouldn't succeed. That's the root cause of the criticism here, the validity of the action and legitimacy of those taking it.

I have read some on here arguing that violent insurrection is the only way results will be had. I mean, that obviously ignores the positive results Liverpool themselves have had through non-violent confrontation. It's also a bit rich to compare the drunken stumblings of outraged football fans, angry at a badly run business, to political leaders like Gandhi, seeking national freedom from imperial oppression.

One other point to note: according to United fans on social media, even if Liverpool v MUFC is rescheduled, they still intend to disrupt that too.

That's something in this thread I find quite distasteful. Gandhi and BLM being brought in to what is, in the scheme of things, nothing more than a squabble over how businesses are run and by who. Of course, our football clubs matter a lot to communities and people far beyond those communities, but some making out that we need violent insurrection by football fans to force a change in business practice is simply ridiculous. The Mancs are rioting because they want their billionaire to plough even more hundreds of millions into the team or, better still, sell up so they can get a bigger, more generous billionaire in their place. I think Gandhi, BLM etc were fighting for something a bit more important myself.

As it stands today, football is obscene. It's a monumental greed-fest from top to bottom, and the vast majority of the fans buy right into all that too. Everyone wants that great new player, but he comes with a £100m price tag and wages to match. The owners are greedy. The players are greedy, the agents are greedy. The fighting in the game currently is all about factions jostling for position at the trough and trying to make their piece of the cake as big as possible. Principles are long gone. Everyone is simply fighting over the corpse of the game and hoping to pick off as much flesh as they can for themselves. The Manc fans want the same too. They simply want their club to be back to being the greediest bully on the block. There is nothing noble in all of this. It's a rampant greed-fest and it runs from top to bottom in the game as it does in life these days.

None of this is a noble fight by oppressed people. It's simply an exercise in looking after No1. It's also some rather odd romantic notion that we can get our game back almost three decades after we let it get sold from under us. It's gone, and it will never be the same again unless it collapses completely and is rebuilt from the ground up at community level once more. Once you sell your soul, you cannot grumble 29 years later and ask for it back just because the course you set out on has reached it's natural conclusion and now you don't like it.

I think Gandhi and BLM had something more substantial to stand against. All we are witnessing today is a sport awash with obscene wealth, and the unedifying sight of all manner of greedy pigs jostling to get the best position in the trough for their snouts.

[Simplexity]

That's something in this thread I find quite distasteful. Gandhi and BLM being brought in to what is, in the scheme of things, nothing more than a squabble over how businesses are run and by who. Of course, our football clubs matter a lot to communities and people far beyond those communities, but some making out that we need violent insurrection by football fans to force a change in business practice is simply ridiculous. The Mancs are rioting because they want their billionaire to plough even more hundreds of millions into the team or, better still, sell up so they can get a bigger, more generous billionaire in their place. I think Gandhi, BLM etc were fighting for something a bit more important myself.

As it stands today, football is obscene. It's a monumental greed-fest from top to bottom, and the vast majority of the fans buy right into all that too. Everyone wants that great new player, but he comes with a £100m price tag and wages to match. The owners are greedy. The players are greedy, the agents are greedy. The fighting in the game currently is all about factions jostling for position at the trough and trying to make their piece of the cake as big as possible. Principles are long gone. Everyone is simply fighting over the corpse of the game and hoping to pick off as much flesh as they can for themselves. The Manc fans want the same too. They simply want their club to be back to being the greediest bully on the block. There is nothing noble in all of this. It's a rampant greed-fest and it runs from top to bottom in the game as it does in life these days.

None of this is a noble fight by oppressed people. It's simply an exercise in looking after No1. It's also some rather odd romantic notion that we can get our game back almost three decades after we let it get sold from under us. It's gone, and it will never be the same again unless it collapses completely and is rebuilt from the ground up at community level once more. Once you sell your soul, you cannot grumble 29 years later and ask for it back just because the course you set out on has reached it's natural conclusion and now you don't like it.

I think Gandhi and BLM had something more substantial to stand against. All we are witnessing today is a sport awash with obscene wealth, and the unedifying sight of all manner of greedy pigs jostling to get the best position in the trough for their snouts.

Agree with all of this. The blatant opportunism is just sickening. I genuinely do not understand how we are supposed to believe that these United supporters have some vested interest in the overall games health. They just want the likes of Mbappe to play for them and win the big trophies again so they can dish out shite banter on twitter, nothing else.

[Son of Spion]

Agree with all of this. The blatant opportunism is just sickening. I genuinely do not understand how we are supposed to believe that these United supporters have some vested interest in the overall games health. They just want the likes of Mbappe to play for them and win the big trophies again so they can dish out shite banter on twitter, nothing else.

It's the age we live in, isn't it?

I think most (on here at least) can see right through it though.