Erm, do you know how sponsors work?
Lets go for the sponsors!
- Thread starter andersj
- Start date
Erm, do you know how sponsors work?
Can't we just cancel United and turn this into a Feyenoord forum? We're partly red too. Might have to do something about that song we sing though.
My bad. Brain fart.
Point still stands. Sponsors won’t really care unless something drastically happens. (Relegation/Mid table)
They aren’t gonna listen to a bunch of fans crying about how bad their team has become.
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. Lose the big sponsors and get smaller ones to replace them because we’re not good enough. Lose even more money and fall further behind. It’s not going to work
I don't think the idea is to complain about the state of United to sponsors, rather to boycott/review bomb etc until the association with the club isn't worth what they're paying for it.
Whether that approach could ever be organised and effective enough to actually hit the Glazers in their pockets is another question though, yeah.
We are a Europa club nowadays, and likely next season. Of course sponsors care, and reduce their deals
Anybody got a spare Fat Man we can drop on Malta?
Not Luke, we've only one of he
Not Luke, we've only one of he
They’ll just sponsor someone else is the point.
They don’t care who owns the club, it’s the club itself they’ll care about - global recognition etc etc
They couldn’t care less who the owner is
Why would we go for the sponsors and reduce our revenue so we can spend even less in the transfer windows?
I think some of you need a wakeup call. This isn't some Robin Hood story, the less we make, the less we spend on transfers, renovations, contracts etc. The Glazers are contracted to receive a dividend as major shareholders, voted for by the board, which contains all of them.
If we were in the Championship, they'd still take a dividend. Get over it and get real.
Until they're gone this is the way it is, just stop cutting your nose off to spite your face. We're the one's that suffer from this stuff, not them.
I think some of you need a wakeup call. This isn't some Robin Hood story, the less we make, the less we spend on transfers, renovations, contracts etc. The Glazers are contracted to receive a dividend as major shareholders, voted for by the board, which contains all of them.
If we were in the Championship, they'd still take a dividend. Get over it and get real.
Until they're gone this is the way it is, just stop cutting your nose off to spite your face. We're the one's that suffer from this stuff, not them.
run negative campaigns in the USA - their domestic audience - somehow!!
now I'm picturing Murtough with a stack of letters from you on his desk. I'm talking hundreds.
oh god yeah.
“day 156
it’s relentless. another!? my god, what do they mean? i briefed that we were going to buy arnautovic and loads turned up. i briefed that we were out of the running for him and even more arrived. just what does it mean? i know we’re rubbish in the transfer market but it can’t be ten hag. he doesn’t have a single hair on his body. i was sure to vet him thoroughly before he was hired. no matter what i do, more hair arrives. god has forsaken me. i am alone. i am a bald man in a sea of hair. i am alone.”
"i am a bald man in a sea of hair"Advertising campaign like how they do in the US elections. One of the larger supporter groups that hasn’t already sold-out to Glazers can arrange crowdfunding and buy billboards, TV spots in the UK, US for some NFL games and/or local TV in Tampa Bay and Florida, India, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, etc - anywhere there is a significant United fanbase. Messaging should be simple - Glazers are ruining the club, donot support Glazers or their sponsors. Sadly, this fanbase is fractured and apathetic.
Anyone who can come up with this sick idea, must be a City or Liverpool supporters.
Because reducing the commercial revenue, and consequently brand value of the club, makes Man Utd less interesting for Glazer to own. In the longer term, it would also hurt their potential to take dividends.
Man Utd have been in a gradual decline for more than a decade. Under this owner, it is difficult to see that change for the next decade.
Consequently, I’m not that worried about the transfer budget. I really dont care if the club goes from being poor to awful. And I would be more than happy to see them become awful if it ment we managed to get rid of the Glazer. Because without getting rid of the Glazer we certainly never compete again.
So reducing the value of the club dont impact the Glazer?
Let's go out more!
The club have more social media interactions and are written about in more media outlets than any other club in the world, and we’ve been dogshit for 10 years. Sponsors only want to hear how much exposure they will get, none of us had heard of Team Viewer, Tezos, Kohler before they became partners. Do you think any of them regret being associated with a shite team?
We’re a commercial brand that happens to have a football team attached to it, I’m pretty sure of the Galzers had their way they’d totally wrap up the sporting side and focus on the commercial aspect instead, it’s a distraction for them, and an expensive one at that, imagine the dividend they could take if they didn’t have to pay for new players and contracts?
The only thing that gets hurt by sponsors pulling out is the footballing side of United. Dividends will still be paid out regardless of where we are or how much money the club make. The commercial side pays for the football side.
Not one fecking bit. It hurts United’s transfer budget and stadium/training ground renovation budget.
So we want something and we target civilian and parties who has nothing to do with our predicament and hope that it somehow hurt the man we want to hurt?
Umm....
Umm....
This is the most monumentally idiotic idea to have been put forward.
Simply assuming that with new owners, the large sponsors will simply come running back to a brand that will have been damaged, is not only naive, but flies in the face of reality.
While we’re in the realm of madness and paranoia, maybe serious thought should be given to why these sort of ideas are being floated and whether underhand actors are at work?
Posters jokingly talking about Liverpool and City fans being behind it, might be unintentionally hinting for that malign forces are indeed at work.
Have you ever considered that Utd’s commercial position as one of the top football clubs, globally, is seen as a target for a competing force that wishes to take the spoils for themselves?
A competitor that intends to do whatever it thinks necessary, to take Utd’s revenue, it’s potential fan base and it’s status in the commercial and footballing hierarchy?
Is simply poring money in and building a successful and dominant football team all that’s required to achieve such success as a global player, or does it require a much broader cutthroat business strategy, to take it to the next level?
Destroy the opponents brand and image and you drive away the sponsors and their income stream will shrink.
Create toxic negative press and vibes around the club and you start to drive away some of the younger fans and potential fans.
All the time there’s a new brighter star to dazzle and attract.
David Icke told me it’s true….honest!
Then again….?
Back to the proposal.
Once Utd fall down that slippery slope of becoming toxic to sponsors, there is no easy way back.
The money won’t come running home, just because the ownership has changed and the fans say it’s alright now, we‘re all happy bunnies again.
It would take years of attempts to rebuild and get consistent success on the pitch, to even begin to claw back what we risk losing.
All with less financial resources to work with.
Meanwhile, our rival(s) will have galloped off over the horizon, not only on the pitch, but as richer, more successful commercial entities.
The damage this insane idea will inflict on the Glazers, will be minuscule compared with the long term damage it will do to Man Utd, the football club.
.
Simply assuming that with new owners, the large sponsors will simply come running back to a brand that will have been damaged, is not only naive, but flies in the face of reality.
While we’re in the realm of madness and paranoia, maybe serious thought should be given to why these sort of ideas are being floated and whether underhand actors are at work?
Posters jokingly talking about Liverpool and City fans being behind it, might be unintentionally hinting for that malign forces are indeed at work.
Have you ever considered that Utd’s commercial position as one of the top football clubs, globally, is seen as a target for a competing force that wishes to take the spoils for themselves?
A competitor that intends to do whatever it thinks necessary, to take Utd’s revenue, it’s potential fan base and it’s status in the commercial and footballing hierarchy?
Is simply poring money in and building a successful and dominant football team all that’s required to achieve such success as a global player, or does it require a much broader cutthroat business strategy, to take it to the next level?
Destroy the opponents brand and image and you drive away the sponsors and their income stream will shrink.
Create toxic negative press and vibes around the club and you start to drive away some of the younger fans and potential fans.
All the time there’s a new brighter star to dazzle and attract.
David Icke told me it’s true….honest!
Then again….?
Back to the proposal.
Once Utd fall down that slippery slope of becoming toxic to sponsors, there is no easy way back.
The money won’t come running home, just because the ownership has changed and the fans say it’s alright now, we‘re all happy bunnies again.
It would take years of attempts to rebuild and get consistent success on the pitch, to even begin to claw back what we risk losing.
All with less financial resources to work with.
Meanwhile, our rival(s) will have galloped off over the horizon, not only on the pitch, but as richer, more successful commercial entities.
The damage this insane idea will inflict on the Glazers, will be minuscule compared with the long term damage it will do to Man Utd, the football club.
.
Last edited:
The super profit at Man Utd stem from the commercial side of the business and is what allows the club to pay dividends to the Glazer. The commercial revenue have been «excessive» compared to other clubs allowing Man Utd to both spend at a similar rate as other top clubs and pay dividends.
If the commercial revenue falls significantly they could, as you say, continue to pay dividends at the expense of the business. But like in other business, if you pay too high dividends it would be at the expense of the long term revenue of the business. If that was not the case, they would pay even higher dividends now.
In the eyes of the Glazers the priory is:
Dividend < Commercial revenue < footballing side
They will never stop taking a dividend and the reason they haven’t increased the dividend payment is because it could potentially damage the business (which is why they also deferred the dividend during covid) but also because fans would burn the stadium down in the current climate.
They’d be absolutely fine reducing the dividend by a few million if they had to. They could just do that for a few years and defer normal payments until United get to a better spot. But the fact still remains that no matter how bad United are, they are attractive to sponsors due to exposure.
Going after the sponsors is just dumb.
If the commercial revenues fall and Utd’s profits collapse, the Glazers won’t be on the hook.
They only run the risk of receiving reduced dividends or no dividends at all.
That’s no big deal when they’re sitting on such a large asset.
Utd, the club, will be the ones at risk.
Don’t forget the club owe over £500m in debt, not the Glazers.
If the sponsors are chased away, we‘re guaranteed to run into consistent annual losses.
How is the debt serviced then?
Do we risk insolvency?
Too big to fail? Really?
Transfer budgets, what transfer budgets?
Barca are in big financial difficulties, but they have loads of sponsors piling in and corporations champing at the bit to buy their media rights etc.
Imagine Utd being put in a similar position, but the sponsors are running in the opposite direction, being chased off by the angry mob.
They only run the risk of receiving reduced dividends or no dividends at all.
That’s no big deal when they’re sitting on such a large asset.
Utd, the club, will be the ones at risk.
Don’t forget the club owe over £500m in debt, not the Glazers.
If the sponsors are chased away, we‘re guaranteed to run into consistent annual losses.
How is the debt serviced then?
Do we risk insolvency?
Too big to fail? Really?
Transfer budgets, what transfer budgets?
Barca are in big financial difficulties, but they have loads of sponsors piling in and corporations champing at the bit to buy their media rights etc.
Imagine Utd being put in a similar position, but the sponsors are running in the opposite direction, being chased off by the angry mob.
Yes let’s go after the charities . Some of the posts on here
Surely of all the things we don’t want to stop it’s the source of investment that some big companies are still daft enough to give a currently unsuccessful team? Talk about self harm!
And secondly, our current ownership woes are not the fault of our sponsors.
Some people just like watching the world burn and then moan about it.
And secondly, our current ownership woes are not the fault of our sponsors.
Some people just like watching the world burn and then moan about it.
Last edited:
In my day this was called a boycott.
This is actually not the worst idea. But the simplest one is for us fans to loose the interest, stop buying tickets and stop buying the merchandise. Without pain there is no change.
eventually by the time we get relegated the Glazers will lose so much revenue they will sell.
eventually by the time we get relegated the Glazers will lose so much revenue they will sell.
It would set the club back potentially a decade or more if we become less attractive to sponsors. Mud sticks, and United wouldn't just suddenly welcome back a new raft of investors.
I'm not venturing an opinion on this, but just putting that out there because most of the unrest seems to come from United falling behind the pack, so people need to ask themselves whether they have the patience to absorb further decline with no guarantee of a favourable outcome.
Judging by the tone of this forum, I strongly doubt our fanbases willingness to see that period through.
I'm not venturing an opinion on this, but just putting that out there because most of the unrest seems to come from United falling behind the pack, so people need to ask themselves whether they have the patience to absorb further decline with no guarantee of a favourable outcome.
Judging by the tone of this forum, I strongly doubt our fanbases willingness to see that period through.
And this is a price worth paying for you?
Yes, I think a decade is probably accurate. But I think Man Utd will continue to fall behind for as long as the Glazer is the owner.
Thumbs up! Good post. I knew what I’d find when I came into this thread and I’m never disappointed
Whilst I'm apathetic to the idea of a sponsor boycott, boycotting club aspects like merch, match day attendance, viewing figures... All that stuff will have a similar effect, if Man Utd is seen as a less profitable and visible brand then the sponsorship deals will get smaller anyway.
I don't know what the answer is, I just don't think there's a way to try and organise movement that doesn't harm the club in the short to medium term.
I’m no glazer apologist but they’ve spent loads and not been afraid to act to undo their previous bad decisions. For all we know we could be on the upswing.
Look I will do it if its most of the Manchester United fanbase. I haven't done it yet just because there is no point as there are hardly any Manchester United fans doing it.
As much as I hate the Glazers what’s the plan here? Sponsors will go, new sponsors will think again about sponsoring, club has less money and we will buy more crap players because of it, levels drops even more, european football gets more difficult, so even less money and more crap players. Glazers sell, which will take ages, more like Newcastle than Chelsea. Some dirty oil money comes in or someone like Boehly who thinks he is the new technical manager as well and goes on a spending spree for not very good players. We could end up even worse then we are now. We spend more than a billions since Fergie left, so the Glazers put up the money. Our structure at the club is shit and most of the people still think we are in the Fergie days. We have to change everything from structure to mentality, we can blame Glazers for not hiring the right men to do that. But with Woordward gone maybe the winds have changed now. That won’t happen in a couple of weeks or months but I really think we could be on the upswing now. But it will take time, a lot of time
I’m afraid.
I’m afraid.
Last edited:
Then we harm the club. Short-term pain for long-term gain. I find the sentiment that fans should protest without actually causing trouble naive and weak. Rioting (in football context, of course) is the language of the unheard. And the Glazers are deaf to anything but the sound of coin. I'm willing to see the club relegated if it means getting rid of these parasites.
I'm not sure if there is any need for this, the Glazers doing a great job of it themselves. Another decade with no trophies, and no one is going to want to sponsor us anymore.
Your argument falls down immediately because it’s fundamentally flawed.
You are risking long term, if not permanent pain, for the short term gain of self satisfaction that you’ve caused some effect, no matter what the consequences might be.
Objecting to this mad idea isn’t naive or a sign of weakness. It’s flagging up the realty of how stupid it is.