croadyman
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2018
- Messages
- 38,782
The Premier League should have been made to answer for why they didn't do more in 2005
This thread tells it all
Thanks for this. Will adapt something and send. This is a good direct way of highlighting the issue to decision makers. Maybe the Trafford MP would also be a good target.Yes, of course. Here is the letter:
“Dear Premier League,
I would firstly ask that this email be forwarded to the relevant authorities, please.
In 2020, the existence of the premier league was put in doubt as owners of several clubs attempted to get the European Super League off the ground. It was rightly derided and met with huge opposition from fans across the UK as an attack on the fundamental values of the game as we know it. Joel Glazer, co owner of Manchester United Football Club, was named as Vice President of the move/organization, and for me, and many other Man United fans, he is still seen as a figurehead of that.
The Premier League and even parts of the UK government were also strongly opposed to the ESL, and ultimately, its establishment attempts were thankfully thwarted.
This brings me to the Premier League’s new ban on leveraged debt-fueled buyouts of clubs, which are hugely important cultural/social assets, as I’m sure you agree.
(https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-expected-to-restrict-debt-fuelled-club-takeovers-12629946)
Arguably, one of the biggest clubs in the world, let alone the UK, Manchester United, as you know, were bought in 2005 by the Glazer family who used a bank loan of approximately £600 million to leverage the deal. This level of debt has drained well over a billion pounds from the club and game itself in bank repayments over the years, and the debt remains largely the same.
This was and still is completely wrong, as you have now acknowledged this with your new rules.
I believe that it is now time for you, the Premier League, to step in and require the Glazer family to either remove the debt immediately or sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership, of which there are many interested parties, including a fan ownership model.
On the Premier League’s new rules and auditing on ‘fit and proper’ ownership, I believe Manchester United’s current ownership is gravely in breach of those that you have set out. I have studied your ‘Premier League Owners’ Charter’:
You state that the owners, as ‘custodians’ of the club, should commit to upholding the heritage of the club. Manchester United were the first English team to win the European cup in 1968, before that, in 1931, local businessman, James Gibson, put a large amount of his own money into the club to remove its debts and allow the club to grow, and fast forwarding to the years before the Glazers’ take over, Manchester United were completely debt free and regular challengers for trophies, which enhanced the Premier Leagues standing worldwide. This, however, is now entirely not the case and therefore, the Glazers have already broken your first rule, and quite probably their ownership has worked against the ethos of your second rule.
Your third rule:
‘We recognise the value each Club has to its broader community and the desire of each individual Club to win and to grow. We will run our Club in an economically stable, sustainable, and socially responsible manner.’
As acknowledged by your ban on leveraged buyouts, it is clear that Manchester United has not been allowed to grow, while chances of winning trophies has been significantly reduced due to the amounts of money that is drained from the club.
Importantly, your ban acknowledges that leveraged buy outs are not socially responsible and morally wrong. Again, I emphasize that Manchester United are a huge socio-cultural asset to the UK, like Liverpool Football Club, and that status should be protected, certainly not actively damaged.
(I am not claiming that the club deserves guaranteed success, just that it has a status and heritage to uphold for the sake of the Premier League if nothing else)
Many other fans and I, not only of Manchester United, could make a fair argument that the Glazers have breached most of your other rules on ‘fit and proper’ ownership.
On rule 10, that all shareholders should have an ‘equal voice’, this is also not the case at Manchester United, where the Glazers family owns all of the ‘Class B’ shares which have significant voting rights. Therefore, the shareholders of ‘Class A’ are nothing more than numbers mined for money which then went directly to the Glazers themselves and was not invested back into the club.
Old Trafford, once one of the best stadiums in the world, has fallen behind other Premier League grounds in size, upkeep and facilities, yet the ownership continues to take money out. The Glazers are the only owners in the premier league who take annual dividend payments.
I’m sure you will agree also, that planned protests by Manchester United fans throughout this season will not be beneficial for the League overall.
I implore you, if you accept that a huge, revered cultural asset should be protected, and in line with your recent rulings on debt-fueled ownership and ‘fit and proper’ ownership, to strongly consider the requirement of the Glazer family to remove the club’s debt in full or to sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership who present a fair purchase offer in the immediate future, like which occurred in the recent sale of Chelsea Football Club.
I hope my message is passed to the relevant authorities and that I receive a sufficient response.
Thank you for your time,“
Im not sure of the rules on posting email addresses on here but here they are:
supporters@premierleague.com, nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk, enquiries@dcms.gov.uk
I’m sure there are other email addresses that you could send to but they’re the ones I used so far. I wasn’t able to get through to the fa.
I tweaked the email slightly depending on where it was going.
Youre welcome to use wherever you think would help.
Brilliant!!! Getting on to it right away. Don't know if they will care receiving e mails from down under but I'm still a British citizen.Yes, of course. Here is the letter:
“Dear Premier League,
I would firstly ask that this email be forwarded to the relevant authorities, please.
In 2020, the existence of the premier league was put in doubt as owners of several clubs attempted to get the European Super League off the ground. It was rightly derided and met with huge opposition from fans across the UK as an attack on the fundamental values of the game as we know it. Joel Glazer, co owner of Manchester United Football Club, was named as Vice President of the move/organization, and for me, and many other Man United fans, he is still seen as a figurehead of that.
The Premier League and even parts of the UK government were also strongly opposed to the ESL, and ultimately, its establishment attempts were thankfully thwarted.
This brings me to the Premier League’s new ban on leveraged debt-fueled buyouts of clubs, which are hugely important cultural/social assets, as I’m sure you agree.
(https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-expected-to-restrict-debt-fuelled-club-takeovers-12629946)
Arguably, one of the biggest clubs in the world, let alone the UK, Manchester United, as you know, were bought in 2005 by the Glazer family who used a bank loan of approximately £600 million to leverage the deal. This level of debt has drained well over a billion pounds from the club and game itself in bank repayments over the years, and the debt remains largely the same.
This was and still is completely wrong, as you have now acknowledged this with your new rules.
I believe that it is now time for you, the Premier League, to step in and require the Glazer family to either remove the debt immediately or sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership, of which there are many interested parties, including a fan ownership model.
On the Premier League’s new rules and auditing on ‘fit and proper’ ownership, I believe Manchester United’s current ownership is gravely in breach of those that you have set out. I have studied your ‘Premier League Owners’ Charter’:
You state that the owners, as ‘custodians’ of the club, should commit to upholding the heritage of the club. Manchester United were the first English team to win the European cup in 1968, before that, in 1931, local businessman, James Gibson, put a large amount of his own money into the club to remove its debts and allow the club to grow, and fast forwarding to the years before the Glazers’ take over, Manchester United were completely debt free and regular challengers for trophies, which enhanced the Premier Leagues standing worldwide. This, however, is now entirely not the case and therefore, the Glazers have already broken your first rule, and quite probably their ownership has worked against the ethos of your second rule.
Your third rule:
‘We recognise the value each Club has to its broader community and the desire of each individual Club to win and to grow. We will run our Club in an economically stable, sustainable, and socially responsible manner.’
As acknowledged by your ban on leveraged buyouts, it is clear that Manchester United has not been allowed to grow, while chances of winning trophies has been significantly reduced due to the amounts of money that is drained from the club.
Importantly, your ban acknowledges that leveraged buy outs are not socially responsible and morally wrong. Again, I emphasize that Manchester United are a huge socio-cultural asset to the UK, like Liverpool Football Club, and that status should be protected, certainly not actively damaged.
(I am not claiming that the club deserves guaranteed success, just that it has a status and heritage to uphold for the sake of the Premier League if nothing else)
Many other fans and I, not only of Manchester United, could make a fair argument that the Glazers have breached most of your other rules on ‘fit and proper’ ownership.
On rule 10, that all shareholders should have an ‘equal voice’, this is also not the case at Manchester United, where the Glazers family owns all of the ‘Class B’ shares which have significant voting rights. Therefore, the shareholders of ‘Class A’ are nothing more than numbers mined for money which then went directly to the Glazers themselves and was not invested back into the club.
Old Trafford, once one of the best stadiums in the world, has fallen behind other Premier League grounds in size, upkeep and facilities, yet the ownership continues to take money out. The Glazers are the only owners in the premier league who take annual dividend payments.
I’m sure you will agree also, that planned protests by Manchester United fans throughout this season will not be beneficial for the League overall.
I implore you, if you accept that a huge, revered cultural asset should be protected, and in line with your recent rulings on debt-fueled ownership and ‘fit and proper’ ownership, to strongly consider the requirement of the Glazer family to remove the club’s debt in full or to sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership who present a fair purchase offer in the immediate future, like which occurred in the recent sale of Chelsea Football Club.
I hope my message is passed to the relevant authorities and that I receive a sufficient response.
Thank you for your time,“
Im not sure of the rules on posting email addresses on here but here they are:
supporters@premierleague.com, nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk, enquiries@dcms.gov.uk
I’m sure there are other email addresses that you could send to but they’re the ones I used so far. I wasn’t able to get through to the fa.
I tweaked the email slightly depending on where it was going.
Youre welcome to use wherever you think would help.
The Glazers are everything wrong with teh club, it has rotten from the top down. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a WUM. They simply dont care and treat the fans for fools yet the club has enriched them beyond their wildest dreams. Nothing changes while they are the owners. MUST should stop engaging with them. Fans need to boycott. Its the only way.There are some shills on here arguing the Glazers aren't really that big of a problem or something.
The disgusting parasites are the root of everything wrong in the club.
The Premier League should have been made to answer for why they didn't do more in 2005
So nothing. If thats what it takes, good. Just pointing out that saying it would be postponed is likely incorrect.
Yes, of course. Here is the letter:
“Dear Premier League,
I would firstly ask that this email be forwarded to the relevant authorities, please.
In 2020, the existence of the premier league was put in doubt as owners of several clubs attempted to get the European Super League off the ground. It was rightly derided and met with huge opposition from fans across the UK as an attack on the fundamental values of the game as we know it. Joel Glazer, co owner of Manchester United Football Club, was named as Vice President of the move/organization, and for me, and many other Man United fans, he is still seen as a figurehead of that.
The Premier League and even parts of the UK government were also strongly opposed to the ESL, and ultimately, its establishment attempts were thankfully thwarted.
This brings me to the Premier League’s new ban on leveraged debt-fueled buyouts of clubs, which are hugely important cultural/social assets, as I’m sure you agree.
(https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-expected-to-restrict-debt-fuelled-club-takeovers-12629946)
Arguably, one of the biggest clubs in the world, let alone the UK, Manchester United, as you know, were bought in 2005 by the Glazer family who used a bank loan of approximately £600 million to leverage the deal. This level of debt has drained well over a billion pounds from the club and game itself in bank repayments over the years, and the debt remains largely the same.
This was and still is completely wrong, as you have now acknowledged this with your new rules.
I believe that it is now time for you, the Premier League, to step in and require the Glazer family to either remove the debt immediately or sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership, of which there are many interested parties, including a fan ownership model.
On the Premier League’s new rules and auditing on ‘fit and proper’ ownership, I believe Manchester United’s current ownership is gravely in breach of those that you have set out. I have studied your ‘Premier League Owners’ Charter’:
You state that the owners, as ‘custodians’ of the club, should commit to upholding the heritage of the club. Manchester United were the first English team to win the European cup in 1968, before that, in 1931, local businessman, James Gibson, put a large amount of his own money into the club to remove its debts and allow the club to grow, and fast forwarding to the years before the Glazers’ take over, Manchester United were completely debt free and regular challengers for trophies, which enhanced the Premier Leagues standing worldwide. This, however, is now entirely not the case and therefore, the Glazers have already broken your first rule, and quite probably their ownership has worked against the ethos of your second rule.
Your third rule:
‘We recognise the value each Club has to its broader community and the desire of each individual Club to win and to grow. We will run our Club in an economically stable, sustainable, and socially responsible manner.’
As acknowledged by your ban on leveraged buyouts, it is clear that Manchester United has not been allowed to grow, while chances of winning trophies has been significantly reduced due to the amounts of money that is drained from the club.
Importantly, your ban acknowledges that leveraged buy outs are not socially responsible and morally wrong. Again, I emphasize that Manchester United are a huge socio-cultural asset to the UK, like Liverpool Football Club, and that status should be protected, certainly not actively damaged.
(I am not claiming that the club deserves guaranteed success, just that it has a status and heritage to uphold for the sake of the Premier League if nothing else)
Many other fans and I, not only of Manchester United, could make a fair argument that the Glazers have breached most of your other rules on ‘fit and proper’ ownership.
On rule 10, that all shareholders should have an ‘equal voice’, this is also not the case at Manchester United, where the Glazers family owns all of the ‘Class B’ shares which have significant voting rights. Therefore, the shareholders of ‘Class A’ are nothing more than numbers mined for money which then went directly to the Glazers themselves and was not invested back into the club.
Old Trafford, once one of the best stadiums in the world, has fallen behind other Premier League grounds in size, upkeep and facilities, yet the ownership continues to take money out. The Glazers are the only owners in the premier league who take annual dividend payments.
I’m sure you will agree also, that planned protests by Manchester United fans throughout this season will not be beneficial for the League overall.
I implore you, if you accept that a huge, revered cultural asset should be protected, and in line with your recent rulings on debt-fueled ownership and ‘fit and proper’ ownership, to strongly consider the requirement of the Glazer family to remove the club’s debt in full or to sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership who present a fair purchase offer in the immediate future, like which occurred in the recent sale of Chelsea Football Club.
I hope my message is passed to the relevant authorities and that I receive a sufficient response.
Thank you for your time,“
Im not sure of the rules on posting email addresses on here but here they are:
supporters@premierleague.com, nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk, enquiries@dcms.gov.uk
I’m sure there are other email addresses that you could send to but they’re the ones I used so far. I wasn’t able to get through to the fa.
I tweaked the email slightly depending on where it was going.
Youre welcome to use wherever you think would help.
This thread tells it all
I have said stop focusing on the players and the owners are the main problem on Facebook. I got called a plastic fan, said I have never been Old Trafford, a simpleton. Its crazy Manchester United fans don't see the main problem here.The Glazers are everything wrong with teh club, it has rotten from the top down. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a WUM. They simply dont care and treat the fans for fools yet the club has enriched them beyond their wildest dreams. Nothing changes while they are the owners. MUST should stop engaging with them. Fans need to boycott. Its the only way.
There are some shills on here arguing the Glazers aren't really that big of a problem or something.
The disgusting parasites are the root of everything wrong in the club.
Books will be written about how they have run one of the world's most recognisable institutions into the ground.
How can you say the Glazers can't be blamed for how the players are performing? They are the ones who have refused to bring in proper football people on the board, proper managers (Solksjaer) and who appoint PR people like Ashton to allow the players an easy way out of criticism by focussing it on one guy like Ronaldo? The Glazers are to blame for EVERYTHING.There are two different problems IMO. The Glazers might be problem in a financial sense, but they can't be blamed for how this team is "performing". Granted we don't all the players we want but there's a lot of money out on the pitch and yet these players have served up nothing but shite for months (years?), lacking any real effort and seemingly unwilling to even attempt to implement a managers plan. A change of ownership shouldn't be required to get a tune of this lot against fecking Brentford.
Sounds plausible given the previous stories of meddling concerning Martial sale, and the lucky strike they had with Tom Brady in Florida.
BanYou blame the glazers for Maguires mistakes? For Bruno wasting/losing possession? For Rashford's inability to do anything right? For that fact that nobody can but a decent ball in the box? I could go. We have a better squad and a better manager than (on paper at least) than Brentford. The Glazers shouldn't be used as an excuse for what we saw on Saturday.
We could in theory get to a point where if the players were performing to their best that it might become apparent that the Glazers are holding the team back from competing with the likes of Liverpool, City and Chelsea due to lack of investment. But more than enough has been invested that you can't say they're holding us back from competing with Brentford. Once the players start doing they're part (some effort and desire would be a start) it'll be a lot easier to point the finger at the Glazers.
Oh please, we've heard that reductionist nonsense before.You blame the glazers for Maguires mistakes? For Bruno wasting/losing possession? For Rashford's inability to do anything right? For that fact that nobody can but a decent ball in the box? I could go. We have a better squad and a better manager than (on paper at least) than Brentford. The Glazers shouldn't be used as an excuse for what we saw on Saturday.
We could in theory get to a point where if the players were performing to their best that it might become apparent that the Glazers are holding the team back from competing with the likes of Liverpool, City and Chelsea due to lack of investment. But more than enough has been invested that you can't say they're holding us back from competing with Brentford. Once the players start doing they're part (some effort and desire would be a start) it'll be a lot easier to point the finger at the Glazers.
There are two different problems IMO. The Glazers might be problem in a financial sense, but they can't be blamed for how this team is "performing". Granted we don't all the players we want but there's a lot of money out on the pitch and yet these players have served up nothing but shite for months (years?), lacking any real effort and seemingly unwilling to even attempt to implement a managers plan. A change of ownership shouldn't be required to get a tune of this lot against fecking Brentford.
Well done on that letter. Brilliant! Surely there is grounds for some type of legal challenge on rule 10. The class A & B shares are clearly n breach of this rule as they don't have equal voting rights. (Why have the Glazers not been taken to task about this?)Yes, of course. Here is the letter:
“Dear Premier League,
I would firstly ask that this email be forwarded to the relevant authorities, please.
In 2020, the existence of the premier league was put in doubt as owners of several clubs attempted to get the European Super League off the ground. It was rightly derided and met with huge opposition from fans across the UK as an attack on the fundamental values of the game as we know it. Joel Glazer, co owner of Manchester United Football Club, was named as Vice President of the move/organization, and for me, and many other Man United fans, he is still seen as a figurehead of that.
The Premier League and even parts of the UK government were also strongly opposed to the ESL, and ultimately, its establishment attempts were thankfully thwarted.
This brings me to the Premier League’s new ban on leveraged debt-fueled buyouts of clubs, which are hugely important cultural/social assets, as I’m sure you agree.
(https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-expected-to-restrict-debt-fuelled-club-takeovers-12629946)
Arguably, one of the biggest clubs in the world, let alone the UK, Manchester United, as you know, were bought in 2005 by the Glazer family who used a bank loan of approximately £600 million to leverage the deal. This level of debt has drained well over a billion pounds from the club and game itself in bank repayments over the years, and the debt remains largely the same.
This was and still is completely wrong, as you have now acknowledged this with your new rules.
I believe that it is now time for you, the Premier League, to step in and require the Glazer family to either remove the debt immediately or sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership, of which there are many interested parties, including a fan ownership model.
On the Premier League’s new rules and auditing on ‘fit and proper’ ownership, I believe Manchester United’s current ownership is gravely in breach of those that you have set out. I have studied your ‘Premier League Owners’ Charter’:
You state that the owners, as ‘custodians’ of the club, should commit to upholding the heritage of the club. Manchester United were the first English team to win the European cup in 1968, before that, in 1931, local businessman, James Gibson, put a large amount of his own money into the club to remove its debts and allow the club to grow, and fast forwarding to the years before the Glazers’ take over, Manchester United were completely debt free and regular challengers for trophies, which enhanced the Premier Leagues standing worldwide. This, however, is now entirely not the case and therefore, the Glazers have already broken your first rule, and quite probably their ownership has worked against the ethos of your second rule.
Your third rule:
‘We recognise the value each Club has to its broader community and the desire of each individual Club to win and to grow. We will run our Club in an economically stable, sustainable, and socially responsible manner.’
As acknowledged by your ban on leveraged buyouts, it is clear that Manchester United has not been allowed to grow, while chances of winning trophies has been significantly reduced due to the amounts of money that is drained from the club.
Importantly, your ban acknowledges that leveraged buy outs are not socially responsible and morally wrong. Again, I emphasize that Manchester United are a huge socio-cultural asset to the UK, like Liverpool Football Club, and that status should be protected, certainly not actively damaged.
(I am not claiming that the club deserves guaranteed success, just that it has a status and heritage to uphold for the sake of the Premier League if nothing else)
Many other fans and I, not only of Manchester United, could make a fair argument that the Glazers have breached most of your other rules on ‘fit and proper’ ownership.
On rule 10, that all shareholders should have an ‘equal voice’, this is also not the case at Manchester United, where the Glazers family owns all of the ‘Class B’ shares which have significant voting rights. Therefore, the shareholders of ‘Class A’ are nothing more than numbers mined for money which then went directly to the Glazers themselves and was not invested back into the club.
Old Trafford, once one of the best stadiums in the world, has fallen behind other Premier League grounds in size, upkeep and facilities, yet the ownership continues to take money out. The Glazers are the only owners in the premier league who take annual dividend payments.
I’m sure you will agree also, that planned protests by Manchester United fans throughout this season will not be beneficial for the League overall.
I implore you, if you accept that a huge, revered cultural asset should be protected, and in line with your recent rulings on debt-fueled ownership and ‘fit and proper’ ownership, to strongly consider the requirement of the Glazer family to remove the club’s debt in full or to sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership who present a fair purchase offer in the immediate future, like which occurred in the recent sale of Chelsea Football Club.
I hope my message is passed to the relevant authorities and that I receive a sufficient response.
Thank you for your time,“
Im not sure of the rules on posting email addresses on here but here they are:
supporters@premierleague.com, nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk, enquiries@dcms.gov.uk
I’m sure there are other email addresses that you could send to but they’re the ones I used so far. I wasn’t able to get through to the fa.
I tweaked the email slightly depending on where it was going.
Youre welcome to use wherever you think would help.
Not that they have ever cared but I think they have properly given up on the club.
I'm kinda hoping we get relegated as at the moment in time with our fanbase being a soft touch with the glazers that it may be the best way we see them sod off as they would hopefully feel it's best to cash out with us going downwards
Yes, of course. Here is the letter:
“Dear Premier League,
I would firstly ask that this email be forwarded to the relevant authorities, please.
In 2020, the existence of the premier league was put in doubt as owners of several clubs attempted to get the European Super League off the ground. It was rightly derided and met with huge opposition from fans across the UK as an attack on the fundamental values of the game as we know it. Joel Glazer, co owner of Manchester United Football Club, was named as Vice President of the move/organization, and for me, and many other Man United fans, he is still seen as a figurehead of that.
The Premier League and even parts of the UK government were also strongly opposed to the ESL, and ultimately, its establishment attempts were thankfully thwarted.
This brings me to the Premier League’s new ban on leveraged debt-fueled buyouts of clubs, which are hugely important cultural/social assets, as I’m sure you agree.
(https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-expected-to-restrict-debt-fuelled-club-takeovers-12629946)
Arguably, one of the biggest clubs in the world, let alone the UK, Manchester United, as you know, were bought in 2005 by the Glazer family who used a bank loan of approximately £600 million to leverage the deal. This level of debt has drained well over a billion pounds from the club and game itself in bank repayments over the years, and the debt remains largely the same.
This was and still is completely wrong, as you have now acknowledged this with your new rules.
I believe that it is now time for you, the Premier League, to step in and require the Glazer family to either remove the debt immediately or sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership, of which there are many interested parties, including a fan ownership model.
On the Premier League’s new rules and auditing on ‘fit and proper’ ownership, I believe Manchester United’s current ownership is gravely in breach of those that you have set out. I have studied your ‘Premier League Owners’ Charter’:
You state that the owners, as ‘custodians’ of the club, should commit to upholding the heritage of the club. Manchester United were the first English team to win the European cup in 1968, before that, in 1931, local businessman, James Gibson, put a large amount of his own money into the club to remove its debts and allow the club to grow, and fast forwarding to the years before the Glazers’ take over, Manchester United were completely debt free and regular challengers for trophies, which enhanced the Premier Leagues standing worldwide. This, however, is now entirely not the case and therefore, the Glazers have already broken your first rule, and quite probably their ownership has worked against the ethos of your second rule.
Your third rule:
‘We recognise the value each Club has to its broader community and the desire of each individual Club to win and to grow. We will run our Club in an economically stable, sustainable, and socially responsible manner.’
As acknowledged by your ban on leveraged buyouts, it is clear that Manchester United has not been allowed to grow, while chances of winning trophies has been significantly reduced due to the amounts of money that is drained from the club.
Importantly, your ban acknowledges that leveraged buy outs are not socially responsible and morally wrong. Again, I emphasize that Manchester United are a huge socio-cultural asset to the UK, like Liverpool Football Club, and that status should be protected, certainly not actively damaged.
(I am not claiming that the club deserves guaranteed success, just that it has a status and heritage to uphold for the sake of the Premier League if nothing else)
Many other fans and I, not only of Manchester United, could make a fair argument that the Glazers have breached most of your other rules on ‘fit and proper’ ownership.
On rule 10, that all shareholders should have an ‘equal voice’, this is also not the case at Manchester United, where the Glazers family owns all of the ‘Class B’ shares which have significant voting rights. Therefore, the shareholders of ‘Class A’ are nothing more than numbers mined for money which then went directly to the Glazers themselves and was not invested back into the club.
Old Trafford, once one of the best stadiums in the world, has fallen behind other Premier League grounds in size, upkeep and facilities, yet the ownership continues to take money out. The Glazers are the only owners in the premier league who take annual dividend payments.
I’m sure you will agree also, that planned protests by Manchester United fans throughout this season will not be beneficial for the League overall.
I implore you, if you accept that a huge, revered cultural asset should be protected, and in line with your recent rulings on debt-fueled ownership and ‘fit and proper’ ownership, to strongly consider the requirement of the Glazer family to remove the club’s debt in full or to sell the club to a new ‘fit and proper’ ownership who present a fair purchase offer in the immediate future, like which occurred in the recent sale of Chelsea Football Club.
I hope my message is passed to the relevant authorities and that I receive a sufficient response.
Thank you for your time,“
Im not sure of the rules on posting email addresses on here but here they are:
supporters@premierleague.com, nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk, enquiries@dcms.gov.uk
I’m sure there are other email addresses that you could send to but they’re the ones I used so far. I wasn’t able to get through to the fa.
I tweaked the email slightly depending on where it was going.
Youre welcome to use wherever you think would help.
The squad we have is shite. A lot of the players in it have no business playing for a club supposed to compete for the highest honors.
The reason they are here is because of the lack of vision and ambition. And the source of that are the leeches. Why was Ole manager for as long as he was? Why was Fletcher promoted from kid's coach to technical director within two years? Why is Murtough DoF despite having absolutely no experience in an even remotely similar position? Why is he still there? Why did Woodward despite being unfathomably incompetent in all matters football remain in the club for a decade? And that's obviously without touching upon the financial aspects.
The Glazers decide what goes on in the club because they appoint the people. And since they couldn't care any less people who are clearly stealing a living infest the club on and off the pitch. If they wanted the best for the club, had a vision and appointed the correct people Maguire and AWB wouldn't be here. Rashford would have been sold this summer. Lingard, Jones, Pogba, Bailly would have been a distant memory.
I wish wasn't invested so much, but I am, and I hate them so much. I wish I'm alive to see them driven out of this club.
I just saw someone defending the Glazers as they've "committed" funds to sign De Jong.Not that they have ever cared but I think they have properly given up on the club.