Would pressuring sponsors be more effective than protesting against the Glazers directly?

horsechoker

The Caf's Ezza.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
54,172
Location
The stable
It seems the Glazers won't sell and as much as people can protest at the ground and cause disruption, how effective will it actually be?

However would indirect action be more effective, such as putting pressure on Adidas and the like to help force the Glazers out.

The sponsors bring in tons of cash and if they threaten to pull out, then that could force the Glazers to sell.

I don't know what the best way to do this is beyond a simple boycott or certain companies.

So, silly idea or credible?
 
Why, in the flying feck of all fecks, would Adidas be bothered about our current owners?

Have you heard about Adidas and their sweatshops? feck me.

Zero fecks given. Nike with PSG, the sportwashing and their owners. Manchester City and Puma?

Yet Adidas is going to be bothered about Manchester Uniteds owners, because the fans don't like them.

Yup, not happening
 
UncleBob said:
Why, in the flying feck of all fecks, would Adidas be bothered about our current owners?

Have you heard about Adidas and their sweatshops? feck me.

Zero fecks given. Nike with PSG, the sportwashing and their owners. Manchester City and Puma?

Yet Adidas is going to be bothered about Manchester Uniteds owners, because the fans don't like them.

Yup, not happening
Click to expand...
If they feel their sponsorship makes them look bad they'll withdraw. Most companies aren't bothered about anything except money but if there's something that can damage their reputation and thus their bottom line, they'll pull out or pressure the club to change.

Some sponsors weren't happy with the SL and I think one of Liverpool's even pulled out.
 
UncleBob said:
Why, in the flying feck of all fecks, would Adidas be bothered about our current owners?

Have you heard about Adidas and their sweatshops? feck me.

Zero fecks given. Nike with PSG, the sportwashing and their owners. Manchester City and Puma?

Yet Adidas is going to be bothered about Manchester Uniteds owners, because the fans don't like them.

Yup, not happening
Click to expand...

if we stop buying Adidas stuff? or have I missed the point?
 
horsechoker said:
If they feel their sponsorship makes them look bad they'll withdraw. Most companies aren't bothered about anything except money but if there's something that can damage their reputation and thus their bottom line, they'll pull out or pressure the club to change.

Some sponsors weren't happy with the SL and I think one of Liverpool's even pulled out.
Click to expand...

If the bigger companies couldn't give half a feck about the ownership at City, PSG, and the crimes they are responsible for, they aren't going to run off from lucrative deals just because a group of supporters are unhappy with the owners.

TRIBUS watches yanked out.

Never fecking heard of them, their most expensive watch is around £2k, luxury watchmaker my hairy arse.
 
Tarrou said:
if we stop buying Adidas stuff? or have I missed the point?
Click to expand...
Don't buy the new shirts, everybody by Green and Gold. Have a stadium of Green and Gold shirts. Except you know somebody will give into pressure to get the new shirts. Not enough kids are taught the history of this club.
 
UncleBob said:
They sell around 1.7mill United kits every year.

Good luck putting a dent in that figure.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your question of why would Adidas care. That is the only possible reason and I assumed that was what OP meant.

I don't think it's likely either.
 
Shirt sales are down, aren't they?

It's just hit me that I haven't bought a United top in 10 years. Last one I bought was the 10/11 home shirt with Scholes on the back.
 
Our contract with Adidas runs until 2024. What pressure United fans put on them means feck all as they can’t break a contract because United fans don’t like their owners.
 
red4ever 79 said:
Have you seen the reviews on there? And this is our sponsor, christ
Click to expand...
A lot of the negative comments are from angry united fans tbf. There’s literally an alert message that pops up about the current situation when you load the page. Not exactly the kind of attention they paid £50mil for hahahaha
 
What would it take for an average United fan in most countries to actually boycott - say - Adidas?

Probably a great deal.

To organize a boycott among hardcore fans (of the "legacy" variety) might be half realistic given the current sentiment - but world wide?

In theory, it's a good idea, though - money is the only language these people understand.
 
horsechoker said:
It seems the Glazers won't sell and as much as people can protest at the ground and cause disruption, how effective will it actually be?

However would indirect action be more effective, such as putting pressure on Adidas and the like to help force the Glazers out.

The sponsors bring in tons of cash and if they threaten to pull out, then that could force the Glazers to sell.

I don't know what the best way to do this is beyond a simple boycott or certain companies.

So, silly idea or credible?
Click to expand...

Sponsor boycotts do actually work, as long as they are organized and protracted over time. The threat of millions of United supporters not buying a brand would be effective leverage imo. Even more so, if supporters of other clubs seeking to replace their owners (like Arsenal) participated in our boycott and we in theirs. When you add numerous clubs into the mix, it would put tremendous pressure on the owners to take action.
 
Manchester United is purely a brand and a business to these people. Affecting that brand through negative media coverage will influence decision-makers, both within the club and sponsors.
 
While, this is likely the most effective idea to boycott sponsors and hit Owners where it hurts, the flip side is the Man utd brand looses value/revenue and Galzers compensate by reducing transfer kitty or selling off key assets.

If they really don't give a shit about the football they will sell key assets to pay the loans and dividends.
 
horsechoker said:
It seems the Glazers won't sell and as much as people can protest at the ground and cause disruption, how effective will it actually be?

However would indirect action be more effective, such as putting pressure on Adidas and the like to help force the Glazers out.

The sponsors bring in tons of cash and if they threaten to pull out, then that could force the Glazers to sell.

I don't know what the best way to do this is beyond a simple boycott or certain companies.

So, silly idea or credible?
Click to expand...

Makes sense. In addition to physical protests. Ideally, all sponsors of the club and all commercial partners of the Glazers for every single one of their businesses, would be targeted through social media, pushing for boycotts of their products and services if they don't cease partnering with the Glazers. It's the money shot. But physical protests fuel the flames and keep them guessing.


UncleBob said:
Why, in the flying feck of all fecks, would Adidas be bothered about our current owners?

Have you heard about Adidas and their sweatshops? feck me.

Zero fecks given. Nike with PSG, the sportwashing and their owners. Manchester City and Puma?

Yet Adidas is going to be bothered about Manchester Uniteds owners, because the fans don't like them.

Yup, not happening
Click to expand...

The sweatshop slavery is part of our collective cognitive dissonance (one tiny bit of it anyway). If it became an urgent issue that people actually cared about enough, it would be a different story. So whilst everyone pretty much ignores it, Adidas and the like, can too. If supporters (for them; customers) of one of the biggest clubs in the world (for them; brand) get rowdy over their support to hated owners that would be one of the most practical things we could do. The culture has gone mad with canceling stuff, virtue signalling and co-opting different forms of dissent churning out products, sets of behaviour and polarised narratives. We might as well get something actually decent from it too.
 
acnumber9 said:
Our contract with Adidas runs until 2024. What pressure United fans put on them means feck all as they can’t break a contract because United fans don’t like their owners.
Click to expand...
It doesnt mean feck all when the next sponsorship comes around at a lower price
 
clarkydaz said:
It doesnt mean feck all when the next sponsorship comes around does it, at a lower price
Click to expand...
So three more years of them owning the club and then if the sponsorship drops (which is likely regardless) they’ll shed billions off their valuation? It doesn’t even qualify as a long shot.
 
acnumber9 said:
So three more years of them owning the club and then if the sponsorship drops (which is likely regardless) they’ll shed billions off their valuation? It doesn’t even qualify as a long shot.
Click to expand...
its a trend they see their brand devaluing. Like the new shirt sponsor is way lower than what Chevrolet overpayed. They cant keep blagging this is Fergie era United
 
clarkydaz said:
its a trend they see their brand devaluing. Like the new shirt sponsor is way lower than what Chevrolet overpayed. They cant keep blagging this is Fergie era United
Click to expand...
But like I say, that’s three years away and the deal is likely to be less regardless of anything that happens. United fans saying mean things online to sponsors isn’t going to cancel the existing contracts.
 
It's amazing people are so quick to shoot down genuine good ideas about damaging the Glazers.

The Glazers won't be brought down by one single thing but a COORDINATED campaign.

We have already seen that Adidas are unhappy with the amount of sales of shirts. Next time the sponsorship deal will have to be renewed, they won't want to pay as much. I'd be surprised if other brands are fooled as well.

Once you light a fire under the Glazers' heap of money, they'll think of cashing out before more of it burns down.

And if I see someone talking absolute nonsense shooting down ideas that will definitely help the cause, I will call them out on here. Example number one of a smartass is below.
UncleBob said:
Why, in the flying feck of all fecks, would Adidas be bothered about our current owners?

Have you heard about Adidas and their sweatshops? feck me.

Zero fecks given. Nike with PSG, the sportwashing and their owners. Manchester City and Puma?

Yet Adidas is going to be bothered about Manchester Uniteds owners, because the fans don't like them.

Yup, not happening
Click to expand...

Here we have example two of another smartass that has little knowledge but a big opinion. Let's deal with this as well.

acnumber9 said:
So three more years of them owning the club and then if the sponsorship drops (which is likely regardless) they’ll shed billions off their valuation? It doesn’t even qualify as a long shot.
Click to expand...
Stock markets are forward-looking. They price in revenue and profits 3-5 years in advance. If it's looking likely sponsors might start pulling out or scaling down, the price will drop.

A smart business man is one because they can recognise an opportunity but they can also see when they've come to the end of the line.

Keep going and we might just do it.
 
Take huge Nike banners to Old Trafford with anti-Glazer messages on them. See if Adidas like paying tens of millions of pounds to see United's stadium covered in their biggest rivals logo.
 
Will we have to do so whilst pretending we can’t see that those calling for it are also stomping their feet in the transfer section the second someone reports we’re not willing to meet the asking price for a rumoured target?
 
UncleBob said:
Why, in the flying feck of all fecks, would Adidas be bothered about our current owners?

Have you heard about Adidas and their sweatshops? feck me.

Zero fecks given. Nike with PSG, the sportwashing and their owners. Manchester City and Puma?

Yet Adidas is going to be bothered about Manchester Uniteds owners, because the fans don't like them.

Yup, not happening
Click to expand...
Because they invest the money for positive marketing and brand image. They are not investing for charity.

If the publicity around the brand for sponsoring United becomes negative then yes, they will end the marketing investment/partnership.

It is not about brands caring about our owners, that is never going to happen. But they will care about the response to them from consumers, i.e. United fans.
 
You can target the sponsors indirectly by not watching us on TV. They less views our games get the less likely companies will be willing to pay for deals to publicise their brands with us.
 
Monger said:
While, this is likely the most effective idea to boycott sponsors and hit Owners where it hurts, the flip side is the Man utd brand looses value/revenue and Galzers compensate by reducing transfer kitty or selling off key assets.

If they really don't give a shit about the football they will sell key assets to pay the loans and dividends.
Click to expand...
Or even better, the value of the club diminishes and the Glazers feck off, and the fans get to buy the club back at a discount. The value of United is based on us and our willingness to prop it up. We put our wallets away, the Glazers feel it.
 
Rightnr said:
It's amazing people are so quick to shoot down genuine good ideas about damaging the Glazers.

The Glazers won't be brought down by one single thing but a COORDINATED campaign.

We have already seen that Adidas are unhappy with the amount of sales of shirts. Next time the sponsorship deal will have to be renewed, they won't want to pay as much. I'd be surprised if other brands are fooled as well.

Once you light a fire under the Glazers' heap of money, they'll think of cashing out before more of it burns down.

And if I see someone talking absolute nonsense shooting down ideas that will definitely help the cause, I will call them out on here. Example number one of a smartass is below.


Here we have example two of another smartass that has little knowledge but a big opinion. Let's deal with this as well.


Stock markets are forward-looking. They price in revenue and profits 3-5 years in advance. If it's looking likely sponsors might start pulling out or scaling down, the price will drop.

A smart business man is one because they can recognise an opportunity but they can also see when they've come to the end of the line.

Keep going and we might just do it.
Click to expand...

Son of a hamster; I was going to make that joke.

There will always be people saying any actions fans can take are pointless and that it's impossible anyway so why bother. Truth is, every little bit helps and impossible is nothing.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Because they invest the money for positive marketing and brand image. They are not investing for charity.

If the publicity around the brand for sponsoring United becomes negative then yes, they will end the marketing investment/partnership.

It is not about brands caring about our owners, that is never going to happen. But they will care about the response to them from consumers, i.e. United fans.
Click to expand...

I like how it sounds so simple to some people.
We have 4 years left on our current deal with Adidas, our major sponsorships are long term contracts. Unless we do something daft and violate the terms, there's no quick way out without paying a massive compensation.

Going after sponsors isn't something new, it just rarely works. It was attempted in the early 2000's when the Yanks took over the club. Season tickets were burnt, sponsors were targeted, a protest club was formed, death threats towards the yanks. It made feck all of a difference.

The breaking point where sponsors doesn't want to be associated with the club is miles away, it would also be an epic disaster we'd struggle to recover from.
 
I just dont know why everyone just stops buying tickets and merchandise and cancel/not renew Sky subscription. No negative press. No injuries/damage. The sponsors will take notice then. Job done.
 
the issue is are we ready to accept more years of no success for them to be removed? it would probably take 5-6 years of this before they got panicked into selling.

They'll still take their money every year if it's there. do you think if there's 80m profit left over in a year, they'll be spending 80m on Sancho instead of lining their pockets? I don't.
 
Bastian said:
Makes sense. In addition to physical protests. Ideally, all sponsors of the club and all commercial partners of the Glazers for every single one of their businesses, would be targeted through social media, pushing for boycotts of their products and services if they don't cease partnering with the Glazers. It's the money shot. But physical protests fuel the flames and keep them guessing.


The sweatshop slavery is part of our collective cognitive dissonance (one tiny bit of it anyway). If it became an urgent issue that people actually cared about enough, it would be a different story. So whilst everyone pretty much ignores it, Adidas and the like, can too. If supporters (for them; customers) of one of the biggest clubs in the world (for them; brand) get rowdy over their support to hated owners that would be one of the most practical things we could do. The culture has gone mad with canceling stuff, virtue signalling and co-opting different forms of dissent churning out products, sets of behaviour and polarised narratives. We might as well get something actually decent from it too.
Click to expand...

People forget it and move on to something else.

It's a football club, a group of supporters being negative towards the owners, state of things etc, isn't exactly something new... Sponsors aren't going to fork out massive compensation fees and cancel their contract as a result. The people protesting are hardly the number one customers at the mega store.

People are too naive, it would take an epic company PR disaster equivalent of someone being guilty of metoo while being racist for sponsors to flee from us.

The type of protests required, over time, to even get close to a point where it'll be proper annoying for the higher ups, i don't think it's possible.

After the yanks took over the club, fans weren't even able to stage a mass walk out of the stadium, boycotting and targeting sponsors had zero effect, yet this time around it's suddenly going to work wonders.

I reckon that forcing someone like these cnuts out of the club is going to be close to impossible, and that the priority should be to avoid burning bridges. Right now there's support to the cause because of the SL disaster, but that support won't last long. Major protests that delays matches etc is going to win the PL over, or any politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.