Man United Fans attack sponsors (online)
- Thread starter bluebell
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
'This profile has seen a significant increase in reviews as a result of media attention that relates to a partnership the business has entered into with a sports team.
Although we understand you want to voice your opinion about things in the news and issues trending on social media, Trustpilot is a place for feedback based on genuine buying and service experiences.
If you've had a genuine experience with TeamViewer you're of course more than welcome to leave your review here. If your review does not reflect a genuine buying or service experience, Trustpilot reserves the right to remove it'.
The simplest approach at this point would be to temporarily suspend Teamviewers Trustpilot account
Although we understand you want to voice your opinion about things in the news and issues trending on social media, Trustpilot is a place for feedback based on genuine buying and service experiences.
If you've had a genuine experience with TeamViewer you're of course more than welcome to leave your review here. If your review does not reflect a genuine buying or service experience, Trustpilot reserves the right to remove it'.
The simplest approach at this point would be to temporarily suspend Teamviewers Trustpilot account
This is a pretty smart move, but you have to be prepared to do it long term and settle in for a war of attrition. If the fans can make sponsors think twice about doing a deal with Utd or drive down the prices of said deals then the owners will start to take this seriously.
However if they run down the club shop next August to buy all the new kit in time for the season to kick off then it's just pointless posturing. Fans should have more power, but ultimately you have to be prepared to hurt your own club financially to force a reset because as long as they can make a profit your objections are nothing more than an inconvenience.
However if they run down the club shop next August to buy all the new kit in time for the season to kick off then it's just pointless posturing. Fans should have more power, but ultimately you have to be prepared to hurt your own club financially to force a reset because as long as they can make a profit your objections are nothing more than an inconvenience.
Why on earth should fans have more power? Because they are emotionally involved in the club? Even though they are totally unqualified to run one? I can't understand this line of thought ... it's like saying buyers of Armani clothing should have a say in running the company. We might not like what the owners do but it's a business pure and simple, fans have no God-given right since they are not financially invested.
They will. They did the same with that solicitors about a month ago.
Finally. Sense.
It's a weird phenomenon unique in pro sports among fans of higher level clubs.
If you think football fans are just customers of a football club, then fair enough with your argument.
If you think fans aren't just customers but something more to a football club, then I think your comparison to people who likes Armani isn't valid.
They’re more like Apple fan boys.
Armani fans wouldn’t have been able to stop a price hike for Armani products the way Liverpool supporters did for ticket prices through their walkout a couple of years ago.
SOS are demanding two seats on the board, with veto power, so that there is fan representation on the board.
Why SOS? What makes them so uniquely qualified to represent the millions of fans over the world? I propose a battle royale for the privilege of speaking for the fans.
Why SOS? What makes them so uniquely qualified to represent the millions of fans over the world? I propose a battle royale for the privilege of speaking for the fans.
Except that fan ownership/board representation already exists in lots of leagues so its an established precedent even at top clubs like Bayern Munich and Barcelona. Unlike say Armani.
Nobody is saying some random off the Kop should be made CEO.
Maybe my tongue-in-cheek comparison to buyers of Armani clothes wasn't the best but I believe the point I'm making is valid. The majority of fans of most top clubs (excluding those in the lower reaches of the leagues which are naturally mainly locals) don't go to their matches, occasionally buy shirts or kits (for their children), are pretty much armchair supporters and only watch matches which are conveniently timed or are against other top teams and are fickle, they may not be lifelong supporters. They have no right to any say in how the club they support is run.
As for local or passionate supporters, there is a strong emotional & community bond, there is history (I grew up on Merseyside and even as a child attended Cup-final street parties) and much cash is ploughed into traveling to and attending matches. But again the belief that this entitles you to have a say in the financial management and running of the club is tenuous at best.
Going to matches could be likened to going to the cinema to watch your favourite actors. You go because you enjoy it and to see the players/actors you support & enjoy watching. Doesn't give you any rights. The difference with local supporters is the community bond, therein clearly lies some responsibility on behalf of the club to the people - but as far as giving them a saying in how the club is run or any control over the direction of the finances? Nah. Not unless we go down the Bundesliga route.
You can't compare the BL fan ownership (of some clubs) or that of Barcelona to the PL ownership format. It's like comparing socialism to capitalism. Unless the PL ownership structure drastically changes it's not even a consideration. At best you are going to get a token avenue of dialogue, and if that dialogue to contrary to the owners' wishes then they'll likely ignore it anyway.
They can ignore the fans if they want, but they are then leaving themselves open to the sort of action Man Utd fans are currently engaged in. For the owners it has always been about money, FSG/Glazers/Kroenke wouldn't care in the slightest if they finished 10th every year as long as profits kept going up. If all you care about is money then that's exactly what your opponents will target. If fans stood up to their clubs owners more often we wouldn't have come to a point where they actually believed they could get away with something like the ESL. Look how fast FSG folded when confronted with fan unrest, not just over this but the previous ticket price hike.
Even in that instance were the fans correct? I don't think it's as clear cut as it may seem (just more money for the top clubs).
In the case of the ESL was it all about money or was it also about taking back power from UEFA? John Barnes was very clear and concise on this: he believes that the fast back down has only strengthened UEFA/PL's hold over clubs and guess what ... it's about lining their own pockets.
This
The worst thing about the Bollocks of the ESL was the wasted opportunity.
They only had to involve promotion and regulation and say every city in Europe would have new, free to use, training pitches for grass roots football and everyone would have gone with it. UEFA make 38 billion quid. All they had to do was say they'd spend a few billion on inner cities in Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Rome, Seville, etc and everyone would have got their dicks out. Fucking stupid greedy yank mongs.
They only had to involve promotion and regulation and say every city in Europe would have new, free to use, training pitches for grass roots football and everyone would have gone with it. UEFA make 38 billion quid. All they had to do was say they'd spend a few billion on inner cities in Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Rome, Seville, etc and everyone would have got their dicks out. Fucking stupid greedy yank mongs.
They’re Anfield Wrap level of cunting cock wombles
Say what you like about spirit of shankly but at least they have organised some opposition to FSG and Hicks and Gilette before them when required. They've also helped with the Michael Shields situation whilst helping away supporters with subsidised travel. No doubt they have made mistakes but who else is putting themselves forward to represent Liverpool fans whether they be match goers or otherwise? I do believe they have the interests of Liverpool supporters at heart which isn't something I could say about the owners.
By the way I'm not a member but i appreciate organisations like Spirit of Shankly and the FSA for representing supporters. The clubs might get most of their money from tv deals and sponsorship these days but if no one watched the games on tv or bought merchandise then the product they're selling wouldn't be worth much so supporters do matter and most clubs couldn't survive without them.
By the way I'm not a member but i appreciate organisations like Spirit of Shankly and the FSA for representing supporters. The clubs might get most of their money from tv deals and sponsorship these days but if no one watched the games on tv or bought merchandise then the product they're selling wouldn't be worth much so supporters do matter and most clubs couldn't survive without them.
You are hanging from a Cliff by one arm. slowly lossing your grip, You will not survive the fall... Death beckens
Suddenly a strong arm reachs over the edge and starts to pull you up.
You look up and It is a Grizzly bear that is saving you from the fall to certain death...
Is that one of those stories where a wild animal who has been shown kindness by a human in the past and is returning that kindness,or is it that that Grizzly is simpley viewing you as a meal that will be wasted if you fall to your death...?
We where hanging over that cliff, after H&G, and barely clinging on. So when FSG bought the Club and saved us from going under most ever supporter viewed them as savoirs and the owners that clubs should have, Owners with the culb at there heart.
I warned elsewhere at the time that we should be careful how we view them, that they may not be the knights in shining armour that most supporters are making them out to be....
You are now see the direction in which FSG wants to take our club... simply put "We are the meal"
Suddenly a strong arm reachs over the edge and starts to pull you up.
You look up and It is a Grizzly bear that is saving you from the fall to certain death...
Is that one of those stories where a wild animal who has been shown kindness by a human in the past and is returning that kindness,or is it that that Grizzly is simpley viewing you as a meal that will be wasted if you fall to your death...?
We where hanging over that cliff, after H&G, and barely clinging on. So when FSG bought the Club and saved us from going under most ever supporter viewed them as savoirs and the owners that clubs should have, Owners with the culb at there heart.
I warned elsewhere at the time that we should be careful how we view them, that they may not be the knights in shining armour that most supporters are making them out to be....
You are now see the direction in which FSG wants to take our club... simply put "We are the meal"
I wish I’d read this before trying to talk sense into you in the transfer thread.
The problem is that the owners of teams like Chelsea, PSG and Man City have made it that the expectation is that, to compete, all owners have to plough hundreds of millions of their own money in to remain competitive.
FSG aren’t taking huge amounts of money out of the club (unlike say, the Glazers) - they are seeing the value of the club rise, but that only benefits them if they sell.
As much of a shit show as the ESL was, it’s at least understandable that FSG would look to increase & protect revenues that could be reinvested in the club alongside of growing the clubs worth and making some money for themselves.
At the end of the day - who’s actually going to buy a club like Liverpool? Serious investors (ask Bradley) generally buy when something is undervalued or they feel they can add additional value - not when something is at peak value. City, PSG & Chelsea we’re not purchased with return on investment in mind - at least money wise.
FSG aren’t taking huge amounts of money out of the club (unlike say, the Glazers) - they are seeing the value of the club rise, but that only benefits them if they sell.
As much of a shit show as the ESL was, it’s at least understandable that FSG would look to increase & protect revenues that could be reinvested in the club alongside of growing the clubs worth and making some money for themselves.
At the end of the day - who’s actually going to buy a club like Liverpool? Serious investors (ask Bradley) generally buy when something is undervalued or they feel they can add additional value - not when something is at peak value. City, PSG & Chelsea we’re not purchased with return on investment in mind - at least money wise.
Whilst I know you are right, it's a business and run like one, there's a line of thought that as these clubs were originally community clubs and still act as community clubs, that they shouldnt be run by business hence the 50 +1 movement.
So fans should have more power (in their view) is a relevant statement I think...
It's 2021 mate. There is no way back - especially when the owners have either taken huge risks to buy the club(s) or have personally (way way more than any fan) invested so much initially, regardless of a club's value today or whether it's a business or not.
"Manchester United have missed out on a proposed new training kit deal worth £200m over 10 years after the Manchester-based company The Hut Group had concerns about the supporters’ campaign to boycott the club’s commercial partners in protest at the Glazers’ ownership, the Observer understands.
Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July."
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ning-kit-deal-over-fans-anti-glazers-campaign
Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July."
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ning-kit-deal-over-fans-anti-glazers-campaign
When the owners invested in the business they should have done the old porter five forces framework, and known that the fans are an abnormally powerful participant in the market, far more powerful than the consumer in other types of businesses. They didn't do their homework on that and are paying the price. Asking for 51% isn't to do with having a whip around and paying the market value of the club, it's more a case of give us it or we'll devalue the club into the dirt and then get our 51% for a penny on the pound. Straight up blackmail and exertion of your power in a free market, I for one love to see it.
- Status
