It's been going for years Cider. There are minutes stretching back to April 2007 on the club's website but the forum was taking place long before then. MUST are pathological liars.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
It's been going for years Cider. There are minutes stretching back to April 2007 on the club's website but the forum was taking place long before then. MUST are pathological liars.
Ah. Well that's another load of bollocks to add to the collection then.
Honestly I always just presumed that this was one thing they were telling the truth on, that the club had actually cut all ties with the fans. Is it actually a case then, not that the club won't listen to the fans, but that the club just won't listen to MUST? A fair policy if you ask me.
Is the membership controlled? or anybody can join?
What do you mean by controlled?
It would appear that quite a few on here are on a mission to portray MUST as some evil organisation led by the evil Dr Drasdo, what a load of hysterical rubbish. They are not prefect but unlike the Glazers they want what is best for Manchester United the Football club and its fans, the G/G campaign thankfully has forced the Glazers to reduce the clubs debt and MUST will continue to hound the Americans. Cidermans OTT ranting about MUST thankfully continues to raise its profile on here and encouraged me to have a fresh look at them and I have made my feelings clear about my misgivings on MUST to them which were well received and they are open to constructive criticism
Dont' be so harsh on yourself, you come across like Stephen Fry crossed with Einstien when compared to Martin Samuel.
Regarding the esteemed Mr Samuel's actual article - well, all I can say is that I can't believe I still fall for your rehtoric...
After writing the "has it?" question, I was fully expecting that I had set myself up for a fall, and you were going to post some revelation I had missed about how the Glazers had paid the PIKs.
But, no, I should have known better... instead we get an infamous loud-mouth prat from the Mail (who incidentally seems to view booing the team as a valid part of bein a supporter) telling us it's none of our business. Well thank you Mr Samuel, but you'll excuse me if I ignore your ignorant opinions just like I ignore all the others published throughout your paper.
The article tells us nothing we didn't know (unless you're somebody who didn't previously know that Martin Samuel is a cock and the Mail isn't fit to wipe you ares with, that is).
Even you would have to admit it's hardly an argument-clincher?
Samuel might have paid more attention to the financial shenanigans at his beloved West Ham rather than burying his head in the sand (or another pie in his face).
And what has come out of it in over 3 years?
Do the words "paying lip service" mean anything to you?
Did you know that it is a Premier League Requirement for this forum to exist?
Either the members of the forum are vetted on their ability to not ask difficulty questions, or the poor guys just sit there venting while Gill thnks about what he's having for tea. Eitehr way the whole thing is a charade
IMUSA - a long established, democratic organisation representing thousands of fans, was removed from the forum for not toeing the line, and have spent the last 5 years asking to be allowed a voice on it once again, to no avail.
To claim that this forum is in any way adequately giving the fans represntation, while tens of thousands outside sing protest songs and wear green and gold is just farcical... There's a very select band of 4 or 5 posters on here are who are amongst the only living people who could make themselve believe it.
Nah, he's too busy indulging his right to boo his team.
It depends...
If you count a process whereby the club privately and with no accountability chose who is on the forum and remove anybody who speaks out against their policies then, yes, I guess you'd say it was controlled.
Dont' be so harsh on yourself, you come across like Stephen Fry crossed with Einstien when compared to Martin Samuel.
Regarding the esteemed Mr Samuel's actual article - well, all I can say is that I can't believe I still fall for your rehtoric...
After writing the "has it?" question, I was fully expecting that I had set myself up for a fall, and you were going to post some revelation I had missed about how the Glazers had paid the PIKs.
But, no, I should have known better... instead we get an infamous loud-mouth prat from the Mail (who incidentally seems to view booing the team as a valid part of bein a supporter) telling us it's none of our business. Well thank you Mr Samuel, but you'll excuse me if I ignore your ignorant opinions just like I ignore all the others published throughout your paper.
The article tells us nothing we didn't know (unless you're somebody who didn't previously know that Martin Samuel is a cock and the Mail isn't fit to wipe you ares with, that is).
Even you would have to admit it's hardly an argument-clincher?
Don't tell me about the press. We know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
What about the people who read The Sun? Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Yes Prime Minister!
It's a conspiracy!
Afraid not, it's just a club that doesn't have any intention of taking the fans' views into account.
A conspiracy is when you start accusing people of having secret agendas etc... you of all people should know about that.
So from that I take it that you have evidence that some people on that forum were removed for speaking out against the club's policies?
Well, IMUSA may have left the forum voluntarily and lied about it, but it would seem a strange move.
Maybe we should check with internet-renowned authority Ciderman about whether IMUSA are a valid fan's group or just lying, self-interested clowns... you never know who else is part of MUST's conspiracy these days.
How many members did IMUSA have on the forum?
As far as I know they had one representative, but I don't know for sure, there could have been more for some reason.
Do you know whether it was the attitude of this representative or the attitude of IMUSA that caused them to be banned from the forum?
I'm the Telegraph/Guardian type of guy. A good view of both sides of the argument usually.
This isn't relevant, as you all were.
That's exactly how it is Cider.
Not quite... you're forgetting IMUSA, they won't listen to them either.
Oh, or any other elected or representative fans' group.
Just 7 fans of their own choosing, in fact. And then only because they are forced to by Premier League rules.
You'd have to be a bit dumb to have the wool pulled over your eyes that easi... oh. Sorry.
Again, not for a fact, but I'd say the latter is implied by their on-going refusal to give them a seat on the forum.
Thought it was 15 fans.Not quite... you're forgetting IMUSA, they won't listen to them either.
Oh, or any other elected or representative fans' group.
Just 7 fans of their own choosing, in fact. And then only because they are forced to by Premier League rules.
You'd have to be a bit dumb to have the wool pulled over your eyes that easi... oh. Sorry.
It would be nice if MUST stopped using the phrase "the fans" and instead used the phrase "MUST members".
One of the things I hate about them is the way that they presume to speak on behalf of all United fans when a significant majority think they're clueless idiots and would not want to be associated with them in any way, shape or form.
One thing I hate about the Glazer Defence League is the use of the term 'significant majority' when we know for a fact that they can't count.
Dont' be so harsh on yourself, you come across like Stephen Fry crossed with Einstien when compared to Martin Samuel.
Regarding the esteemed Mr Samuel's actual article - well, all I can say is that I can't believe I still fall for your rehtoric...
After writing the "has it?" question, I was fully expecting that I had set myself up for a fall, and you were going to post some revelation I had missed about how the Glazers had paid the PIKs.
But, no, I should have known better... instead we get an infamous loud-mouth prat from the Mail (who incidentally seems to view booing the team as a valid part of bein a supporter) telling us it's none of our business. Well thank you Mr Samuel, but you'll excuse me if I ignore your ignorant opinions just like I ignore all the others published throughout your paper.
The article tells us nothing we didn't know (unless you're somebody who didn't previously know that Martin Samuel is a cock and the Mail isn't fit to wipe you ares with, that is).
Even you would have to admit it's hardly an argument-clincher?
Are we talking about the same multiple award winning, sports journalist of the year, Martin Samuel here?
And of course the MUST propaganda has proven to be complete nonsense.
All we kept being told by MUST and Anders was that the only way the PIKs could be cleared was by using the club's cash. We were given a cast iron guarantee by them that the club's cash was going to pay off those PIK notes. Anders told us and I quote ''tell your friends, tell your family, tell everyone you know, the Glazers are going to take cash out of the club to pay down the PIKs''.
It didn't happen though did it? David Gill has always maintained that the PIK debt was the Glazers responsibility and he has been totally vindicated by the fact that neither the club's fixed assets or cash were used to pay them off. The club's assets never provided security for the PIK debt, it was always secured against the Glazers shares in the club. They were their responsibility and they've dealt with them.
That's it I'm afraid. People are fed up of the MUST bullshit. Five years on from their infamous claim that they ''confidently predict the Glazers business plan will completely fail within three years leading to a forced sale of the club'' they've been shown up for a second time. They won't fool people again.
Not quite... you're forgetting IMUSA, they won't listen to them either.
Oh, or any other elected or representative fans' group.
Just 7 fans of their own choosing, in fact. And then only because they are forced to by Premier League rules.
You'd have to be a bit dumb to have the wool pulled over your eyes that easi... oh. Sorry.
Why on earth would they listen to IMUSA after their behaviour before and after the takeover? Christ almighty. Nobody would.
15 fans are on the forum and they provide a wide representation of United's supporters. And yes, there's no IMUSA and MUST. And thank god for that.
Couldn't agree with you more here TMRD. Does my nut in.
Seriously, you're using that "award winning journalist" argument?
Really?
Nah, you're pulling my leg, nobody is that desperate!
Really?
Nah, you're pulling my leg, nobody is that desperate!
A very loose comment, "a significant majority think they are clueless" Maybe you could show your source for this I would love to see it. The only facts than can be backed up is that MUST is far and away the biggest Manchester United supporters group and recognised by the media as holding the opinons of the ordinary United fan. You should refrain from this anti MUST hysteria especially if you have nothing to back it up
How about for once you respond to my entire post, A1Dan. I know you don't like doing that when you see something you can't really argue against or defend but give it a go. You might just surprise yourself.
If it had not been for the fantastic G/G campaign the Glazers would not have IMHO dealt with the PIKs in the manner they now have done and MUST should be congratulated for this, lets hope they keep the pressure well and truly on. Not asking GCHQ this question as he gets upset when I do but anybody else hear yet where the PIK money actually came from ?
Yes I know where it came from.
Good man, happy for you
Yes I imagine you're right. Still it's hardly surprising is it. If I was Glazer and the main target of a group of United fans was to get me out of the club I wouldn't have them on the fans' forum either. Doubt that anyone in their position would.
Why, if their arguments are solid and they've nothing to hide, they might convert them to their cause.
For what its worth I think most fans broadly sympathise with MUST's aims. The difference is essentially the size of the problem. MUST thinks its serious, and at the other extreme some think its not a problem at all, but perhaps think some element of fan ownership would be preferable. Most would prefer owners who didn't squeeze the club for their own profit, even if they accept it is the price we have to pay, that football is a business for better or worse.
Don't know what to make about the piks. It obviously undermines a lot of arguments that have been made, but who's to say it isn't a MUST / G&G victory? Im not ruling out a raid on our coffers later. We'll have to wait and see.
Don't know what to make about the piks. It obviously undermines a lot of arguments that have been made, but who's to say it isn't a MUST / G&G victory? Im not ruling out a raid on our coffers later. We'll have to wait and see.
- Status