Guardian: Manchester United lose £200m training kit deal over fans’ anti-Glazers campaign

Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
You would of gotten coverage if the match was delayed as per the Chelsea fans protest. That got coverage globally. Did not need to break into the stadium.

Also again, brands worried about boycotts has come after people have actually started threatening to actually boycott all the brands and smashing up reviews online.
Click to expand...
Nah a few fans outside old Trafford being moved along by a former player like Chelski’s fans were would not have gotten the game cancelled for a start.

The chaos they caused that day made the threat to sponsors real, their now obligated to take it seriously as a result.
 
RUCK4444 said:
Nah a few fans outside old Trafford being moved along by a former player the Chelski’s fans were would not have gotten the game cancelled for a start.

The chaos they caused that day made the threat to sponsors real, their now obligated to take it seriously as a result.
Click to expand...


Yes, it created publicity... otherwise fans trying to boycott sponsors and sullying companies' names wouldn't have had anywhere the same effect.
 
We’re all getting ahead of ourselves though, myself included.

I very much doubt the story is even true. I don’t think global brands are that affected by what are small scale protests. It isn’t as if it’s has a particularly noticeable impact. If it ever trended on social media it can’t have been for long as I’ve never seen it outside of specifically looking for it.

This is the biggest media footprint it has and looks suspiciously like propaganda fed to sympathetic journalists extolling its own success in a way that’s suspiciously unquantifiable
 
Spoony said:
I think a season of this could have them doing a runner. They don't care about anything other than making monies.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they would sell to the first bidder regardless of what their intentions for the club may be. Another heavily leveraged buyout is a very real possibility.

We are playing craps with the club here. We might roll a 12 and win big, but we are more likely to roll a 7. I'd be fine with all of this if everyone was more open about this being a gamble. What triggers me into posting here is those that are acting like the potential saviours of the club when in fact this whole thing is, at best, a leap into the unknown and at worst completely reckless.
 
Bilbo said:
Yes, and they would sell to the first bidder regardless of what their intentions for the club may be. Another heavily leveraged buyout is a very real possibility.

We are playing craps with the club here. We might roll a 12 and win big, but we are more likely to roll a 7. I'd be fine with all of this if everyone was more open about this being a gamble. What triggers me into posting here is those that are acting like the potential saviours of the club when in fact this whole thing is, at best, a leap into the unknown and at worst completely reckless.
Click to expand...

The likelihood is that new owners would be worse. Bigger valuation, bigger purchase, bigger dividends.
 
stw2022 said:
We’re all getting ahead of ourselves though, myself included.

I very much doubt the story is even true. I don’t think global brands are that affected by what are small scale protests. It isn’t as if it’s has a particularly noticeable impact. If it ever trended on social media it can’t have been for long as I’ve never seen it outside of specifically looking for it.

This is the biggest media footprint it has and looks suspiciously like propaganda fed to sympathetic journalists extolling its own success in a way that’s suspiciously unquantifiable
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any other media outlets run with the story yet, I could be wrong.
But if so it looks like a non entity of a story.
 
Champ said:
I haven't seen any other media outlets run with the story yet, I could be wrong.
But if so it looks like a non entity of a story.
Click to expand...

The Guardian, Mail, Bloomberg and two others have covered it.
 
stw2022 said:
We’re all getting ahead of ourselves though, myself included.

I very much doubt the story is even true. I don’t think global brands are that affected by what are small scale protests. It isn’t as if it’s has a particularly noticeable impact. If it ever trended on social media it can’t have been for long as I’ve never seen it outside of specifically looking for it.

This is the biggest media footprint it has and looks suspiciously like propaganda fed to sympathetic journalists extolling its own success in a way that’s suspiciously unquantifiable
Click to expand...

The issue with this sponsorship is that they're a Manchester company. I agree a global, non-UK brand would be less affected or less concerned, but they're in JJ's words, conscious of the local problems negative publicity could cause them.
 
Champ said:
I haven't seen any other media outlets run with the story yet, I could be wrong.
But if so it looks like a non entity of a story.
Click to expand...

Agreed, hours later no other outlet except one journalist happy to be MUSTs mouthpiece has even reported on it

Seems legit
 
Drawfull said:
The issue with this sponsorship is that they're a Manchester company. I agree a global, non-UK brand would be less affected or less concerned, but they're in JJ's words, conscious of the local problems negative publicity could cause them.
Click to expand...


We've got a few UK based sponsors.
 
I remember Arsenal fans a few years back were 100% convinced that anyone else was better than Wenger and that they'd rather risk top 4, get things toxic, and get Wenger out. At the end of the day they were wrong, there was a lot farther to fall, and now they're currently 10th in the league with a bunch of random youngsters and mercenaries, a clueless manager, and a swiftly fading relevance.

I see us in a similar situation not necessarily in terms of outcome, but in terms of risk where no one truly knows what will happen, but regardless many are convinced it will be a more positive scenario than our current one. And I guess there is also a segment of people willing to accept a similar or even worse fall from grace (relegation) as long as we get rid of the Glazers in the process.
 
Would be terrible if true. What’s the gain for us fans? That there is less money for the team? The glazers won’t sell because of such things and even if they would sell who guarantees a better owner.
 
If this is a true story it could be a start. If one start to question the profit with sponsoring, others will follow.... agents will use this in the negotiations and player starts to question if they want to be a part of the turbulence...
Stop buying the merchandise if you wants some change.
Looking forward to chapter two...

Non-violence protests please.
 
Drawfull said:
The issue with this sponsorship is that they're a Manchester company. I agree a global, non-UK brand would be less affected or less concerned, but they're in JJ's words, conscious of the local problems negative publicity could cause them.
Click to expand...

Assuming United didn’t leak this then it must have been the company. If so why not provide a source or a quote or an anonymous inside view.

The ONLY thing we have in the article is confirmation that there are no talks ongoing. I’m not currently in negotiations with Apple so you could claim you’ve prevented me getting a £200m sponsorship from them?

That last paragraph in the article is buried for a reason as it exposes it for being nonsense

“Both THG and United declined to comment, with those familiar with the deal at Old Trafford confirming there are no ongoing talks”
 
Just wait and watch. They are gonna put out a hitpiece about how this has caused them not spending in transfers this season, effectively blaming the fans.

That will create a further divide between the fans, seperating them into the moderates and the extremists. As they keep bickering among each other about what is the correct course of action and who's to blame...

The glazers happily keep leeching off our club and our rivals jump ahead of us and secure important signings like Haaland, Rice and Sancho.
 
vanrooney said:
Would be terrible if true. What’s the gain for us fans? That there is less money for the team? The glazers won’t sell because of such things and even if they would sell who guarantees a better owner.
Click to expand...
Short term loss for a long term profit...
 
Champ said:
I haven't seen any other media outlets run with the story yet, I could be wrong.
But if so it looks like a non entity of a story.
Click to expand...

Well, it's The Guardian. It's not like it's some rumour on a shit website.

stw2022 said:
They’re reporting it’s being reported there’s a difference. There’s no other reporting than the report.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how it always works.
 
Highfather_24 said:
Just wait and watch. They are gonna put out a hitpiece about how this has caused them not spending in transfers this season, effectively blaming the fans.

That will create a further divide between the fans, seperating them into the moderates and the extremists. As they keep bickering among each other about what is the correct course of action and who's to blame...

The glazers happily keep leeching off our club and our rivals jump ahead of us and secure important signings like Haaland, Rice and Sancho.
Click to expand...

Maybe but demanding millions are spent whilst at the same time campaigning to restrict income isn’t the most logical of positions
 
Withnail said:
Ok mate, and journalists who write for papers like the Guardian write bullshit pieces that aren't sourced.
Click to expand...

It’s sourced but MUST is the source

The whole article is a fluff piece about how effective the campaign is. It’s a great piece of propaganda that’s not that well disguised
 
::sonny:: said:
Sponsorships are made to sell products to club fans and to develop the brand awareness

A targeted attack like this is the most effective. Each big sponsor will run away from the club as soon as possible
Click to expand...

This is a key point it's nothing more than commercial consumer marketing through brand influence. I've said for years that fans cannot be passive going to games, purchasing merchandise, supporting club initiatives and still moaning about the Glazers despite lining their pockets.

The fans have to take a hard stand and causing financial constraints will raise the recognition of issue to any owner of a sporting establishment. Look how the pandemic has effected the damaging of the footballing economy through restriction of simply attending games. The fans will always have the most influence to a clubs success.
 
Bilbo said:
What triggers me into posting here is those that are acting like the potential saviours of the club when in fact this whole thing is, at best, a leap into the unknown and at worst completely reckless.
Click to expand...

Quote of the thread
 
stw2022 said:
Assuming United didn’t leak this then it must have been the company. If so why not provide a source or a quote or an anonymous inside view.

The ONLY thing we have in the article is confirmation that there are no talks ongoing. I’m not currently in negotiations with Apple so you could claim you’ve prevented me getting a £200m sponsorship from them?

That last paragraph in the article is buried for a reason as it exposes it for being nonsense

“Both THG and United declined to comment, with those familiar with the deal at Old Trafford confirming there are no ongoing talks”
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's nonsense. This is just normal journalism. If you have a good source giving you information that checks out, you print. You don't have to post hard evidence, or attributable quotes. What carries it is your credibility as a news source, which is why you never print something unless you feel confident it's accurate.

For the same reason, no one would be remotely interested in any claim by you that you're being prevented from signing a sponsorship deal with Apple.
 
Lappen said:
Short term loss for a long term profit...
Click to expand...
What's the long term profit? Losing £200m to make back £20m a season, even though the Glazers have no intention of selling? I don't believe they pulled out over the protest, more likely pandemic hitting their business and them seeing an opportunity to renege on an agreement. I don't see how the club losing £200m is a good thing for anyone involved.
 
stw2022 said:
It’s sourced but MUST is the source

The whole article is a fluff piece about how effective the campaign is. It’s a great piece of propaganda that’s not that well disguised
Click to expand...


Whether it is or isn't, the campaign has gathered publicity/steam. We'll just have to wait and see how it ends. Anyway, I suspect the story is true The Hut group are from Manchester...so they'd hate the negative publicity.
 
Zen86 said:
The likelihood is that new owners would be worse. Bigger valuation, bigger purchase, bigger dividends.
Click to expand...
Finally, someone that understands how big business works.

There's not a billionaire in the world that made a billion dollars by giving it away to a football club and expecting absolutely nothing back in return. People need to wake the feck up.
 
Some people in this thread are so naive that their wife could be fecking another dude right in front of them, but she'd assure she wasn't cheating whilst continuing, and they'd believe her.
 
The Glazers want fans to sit back, shut up and keep spending. Doing the minimum to keep that happening is the balancing act. Top four as often as possible and next year will be better is what they hope everyone will accept. Winning titles, investing in stadium etc aren’t on the agenda.

Much like when we fail to qualify for Champions League all this pressure is more likely to make them spend to try and put this to bed.
 
stw2022 said:
In the article please identify these multiple sources for me.
Click to expand...

You often don't identify your sources in the article. The reason being that if you did, they wouldn't consent to being sources, and you'd only be able to write about stuff companies or people chose to go public with themselves. Again, this is perfectly normal journalism.
 
Great news. Hopefully that means we cant afford Harry Kane in the summer and then relegation the next step....fantastic.

:rolleyes:
 
Tarrou said:
Nobody is assuming that.

"Better the devil you know" becomes a little bit meaningless when your owners conspired to setup a super league which could well have decimated the English football pyramid, though.

We're already on course for everything the club stands for being obliterated. Is that just passing you by or what?
Click to expand...

So what exactly is the plan here if you’re not taking for granted that we will find a Kosher owner ?

The saudis or Peter Lim will restore everything that the club stands for ?
 
Like a few fans on this site, I don’t see the positives of this announcement. Unless your lucky, most owners will want a return on an investment. So unless the new owners are a Middle Eastern country or a Russian oligarch, obviously we will ignore possible human right’s abuses, you will end up with something similar.
So sponsors drop out, we have less money and can’t compete for top players. Therefore any advancements made by Ole will disappear as players do what they’ve always done-follow the money.
 
Tallis said:
The saudis or Peter Lim will restore everything that the club stands for ?

Its easy to feel outraged.
Click to expand...


No...but City's owners for example have spent millions in East Manchester. Who knows? if we do end getting bought by an oil state they may start investing in the local area as well. Surely a good thing for Manchester?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.