When The Winning Stops - What Then?
- Thread starter TomClare
- Start date
I would like to thank Johnno for nailing this point to the wall for me....
Very well witten article and i can see where you are coming from but i just don't agree with your main point. What exactly makes a red a "true red" in your opinion? If it's not the football what is it? They obviously need to be at least forty to have experienced the 70's but what else? Can United never get new true fans?
Its a good article, in that it gets a point across very well, but I don't understand what its supposed to mean to most people. What does it change?
Are we all supposed to now become more proactive, boycott Old Trafford (and intensify the miniscule possibility that it could all go horribly wrong), or wait outside hotels on the off-chance that we get to give them a kicking?
What that article does is give the doomsayers something to relate to, because it explains their supposed state of mind better than they ever could do themselves.
Are fans that prefer to talk about the football team less a part of the clubs fibre than those who continually drone on and on about the same situation way after the horse has bolted? I don't believe so.
The Glazers haven't done anything good for United. Who really expected them to anyway?
Are we all supposed to now become more proactive, boycott Old Trafford (and intensify the miniscule possibility that it could all go horribly wrong), or wait outside hotels on the off-chance that we get to give them a kicking?
What that article does is give the doomsayers something to relate to, because it explains their supposed state of mind better than they ever could do themselves.
Are fans that prefer to talk about the football team less a part of the clubs fibre than those who continually drone on and on about the same situation way after the horse has bolted? I don't believe so.
The Glazers haven't done anything good for United. Who really expected them to anyway?
This is all about certain fan's needs to be viewed as a bigger supporter than anybody else.
Do any of them cry themselves to sleep at night over this? Any of them been admitted to a depression clinic? Any of them been left by their partners because they are a shell of the person they used to be?
Of course not, its all bollocks. All these reactionaries are just as desperate for United to nail the treble as the rest of us, despite the fact that it will help the Glazer's no end. Ultimately, its all about the football. In my eyes, a 'TOP RED' is anyone who has continued to adore our club come what may, the faction that run off to form FCUM are least worthy of this title IMO.
TomClare suggests that there is now a ‘new-breed’ of fan and discusses their concerns and how they act, but it seems clear he has confused two different ‘new-breeds’.
Breed 1 exhibits ‘blind allegiance’:
‘There is now a kind of “blind allegiance” or to put it more simply, “blind loyalty,” especially with the younger fans, to everything that is Manchester United. So they sing whilst they are winning.’
This loyalty ‘to everything that is Manchester United’ means that they do not concern themselves, it seems, with the debt, with the possible change of our historic culture, with the pricing causing difficulties to average supporters etc.
Yet this unquestioning loyalty now seems to function completely differently in a different circumstance… So differently in fact, that I reckon we need to call this batch Breed 2:
‘But have these people who share this “blind allegiance/loyalty” really given any deep thought as to what happens when the winning ceases?’
‘But it can become an albatross around the neck in that we see a new breed, a different kind of fan emerging - fans who are only concerned with “success” and “winning”, and that is all that matters, to them and to hell with everything else.’
Here, the ‘new-breed’ is concerned solely with success, and will drift away if we stop getting results – not really very much ‘loyalty’ being shown here at all is there? Certainly not to ‘everything that is Manchester United’! I think we’d agree that the loyalty of supporters when teams are not doing so well on the pitch is very important, an admirable (even required?) trait in a real supporter.
So which of the new-breeds do which things – or does TomClare think they can be one and the same?
Certainly, both are likely to be unconcerned by grass-roots football receiving insufficient benefit from the new monies – but when we look at the author’s concerns we see they are more likely to be that MUFC will not see the benefit because the Glazers will take it all. He talks about the revenue, lack of MUFC development and asserts we won’t spend on players, presumably because ‘the money comes rolling in – and out just as fast’. He’s more worried about MUFC to be fair – which is fair enough, he’s a supporter.
But hold on, he’s back again, worried about the divide between the haves and have-nots… Or is he really? Because we see this quickly turn into a diatribe against moneymakers taking funds out of the game. Is this merely some anti-capitalist position disguised by an altruistic introduction? Well, let’s be more charitable – it seems from his large para. 3rd from bottom that he’s worried that football per se may be overextending itself financially given possible future economic fluctuations.
His main concerns about the ‘new-breeds’ also become clear:
‘You only have to look at the outcry that happens these days whenever results don’t go United’s way. Carnage on the various message boards, and a lot of it is quite vitriolic.’
He’s really been talking about Breed 2 all the time – remember, these guys are only loyal to success. So Breed 2 aren’t likely to care about the overall structure of football. Fair enough, but it’s not automatically the case that they won’t care about reinvestment in the club (what happened to the idea that transfer muppets are success-hungry minors?), also some won’t be as short-sighted or blinkered as TomClare paints them. After all, in the new, far too expensive, ticket-buying environment they must have been clued-in enough to make some dosh. Some, surely, can recognize spin when they see it (okay, not if they bat for England obviously.) Despite the errors in caricature, there are probably a few type-2’s around.
So why were we told about Breed 1? Well, I suggest that we do have a number of new fans who are loyal as described, but I suggest that they may well be loyal in adverse circumstances – both on and off the field. After all, a lot of the older fans have been intensely (yet questioningly) loyal over many decades – are new fans necessarily that different?
But why were the 2 new breeds described as one?
TomClare’s real concern appears to be the Glazer effect… Type 2 supporters won’t complain about the Glazer problems and will drift away if results fall off. They also aren’t admirable in any way – it’s easy to feel little sympathy for them, or their views.
By falsely linking ‘blind loyalty’ with such views perhaps he hopes such negative responses would also to apply to any loyal supporters who are Breed 1? Is it just a rhetorical device? Because, apart from their failure to protest against Glazer etc. in the way he would like, they would otherwise evoke quite a bit of sympathy – and that wouldn’t help in his campaign against them. Then again, not everyone who fails to protest in the way he wants is a Breed 1 ‘blind loyal’ unquestioning stooge either, but TomClare doesn’t seem to want to discuss such people.
Last point: it’s apparently great to support the team despite problems with football results, yet despicable to support them no matter the financial results. At least, unless you are prepared to stand up and complain – which you shouldn’t do too much about the football results. (I know there are other concerns – but this struck me as amusing).
Breed 1 exhibits ‘blind allegiance’:
‘There is now a kind of “blind allegiance” or to put it more simply, “blind loyalty,” especially with the younger fans, to everything that is Manchester United. So they sing whilst they are winning.’
This loyalty ‘to everything that is Manchester United’ means that they do not concern themselves, it seems, with the debt, with the possible change of our historic culture, with the pricing causing difficulties to average supporters etc.
Yet this unquestioning loyalty now seems to function completely differently in a different circumstance… So differently in fact, that I reckon we need to call this batch Breed 2:
‘But have these people who share this “blind allegiance/loyalty” really given any deep thought as to what happens when the winning ceases?’
‘But it can become an albatross around the neck in that we see a new breed, a different kind of fan emerging - fans who are only concerned with “success” and “winning”, and that is all that matters, to them and to hell with everything else.’
Here, the ‘new-breed’ is concerned solely with success, and will drift away if we stop getting results – not really very much ‘loyalty’ being shown here at all is there? Certainly not to ‘everything that is Manchester United’! I think we’d agree that the loyalty of supporters when teams are not doing so well on the pitch is very important, an admirable (even required?) trait in a real supporter.
So which of the new-breeds do which things – or does TomClare think they can be one and the same?
Certainly, both are likely to be unconcerned by grass-roots football receiving insufficient benefit from the new monies – but when we look at the author’s concerns we see they are more likely to be that MUFC will not see the benefit because the Glazers will take it all. He talks about the revenue, lack of MUFC development and asserts we won’t spend on players, presumably because ‘the money comes rolling in – and out just as fast’. He’s more worried about MUFC to be fair – which is fair enough, he’s a supporter.
But hold on, he’s back again, worried about the divide between the haves and have-nots… Or is he really? Because we see this quickly turn into a diatribe against moneymakers taking funds out of the game. Is this merely some anti-capitalist position disguised by an altruistic introduction? Well, let’s be more charitable – it seems from his large para. 3rd from bottom that he’s worried that football per se may be overextending itself financially given possible future economic fluctuations.
His main concerns about the ‘new-breeds’ also become clear:
‘You only have to look at the outcry that happens these days whenever results don’t go United’s way. Carnage on the various message boards, and a lot of it is quite vitriolic.’
He’s really been talking about Breed 2 all the time – remember, these guys are only loyal to success. So Breed 2 aren’t likely to care about the overall structure of football. Fair enough, but it’s not automatically the case that they won’t care about reinvestment in the club (what happened to the idea that transfer muppets are success-hungry minors?), also some won’t be as short-sighted or blinkered as TomClare paints them. After all, in the new, far too expensive, ticket-buying environment they must have been clued-in enough to make some dosh. Some, surely, can recognize spin when they see it (okay, not if they bat for England obviously.) Despite the errors in caricature, there are probably a few type-2’s around.
So why were we told about Breed 1? Well, I suggest that we do have a number of new fans who are loyal as described, but I suggest that they may well be loyal in adverse circumstances – both on and off the field. After all, a lot of the older fans have been intensely (yet questioningly) loyal over many decades – are new fans necessarily that different?
But why were the 2 new breeds described as one?
TomClare’s real concern appears to be the Glazer effect… Type 2 supporters won’t complain about the Glazer problems and will drift away if results fall off. They also aren’t admirable in any way – it’s easy to feel little sympathy for them, or their views.
By falsely linking ‘blind loyalty’ with such views perhaps he hopes such negative responses would also to apply to any loyal supporters who are Breed 1? Is it just a rhetorical device? Because, apart from their failure to protest against Glazer etc. in the way he would like, they would otherwise evoke quite a bit of sympathy – and that wouldn’t help in his campaign against them. Then again, not everyone who fails to protest in the way he wants is a Breed 1 ‘blind loyal’ unquestioning stooge either, but TomClare doesn’t seem to want to discuss such people.
Last point: it’s apparently great to support the team despite problems with football results, yet despicable to support them no matter the financial results. At least, unless you are prepared to stand up and complain – which you shouldn’t do too much about the football results. (I know there are other concerns – but this struck me as amusing).
I don't agree with this guy as he has know idea how a business is run, is not a businessman and is completely out of his depth on that front. I also hate anyone that uses a straw man arguement to get his point across.
Football mirrors the real world we live in, market forces are in control, we have to adapt or die. The succesful rise to the top. If the premiership is getting an "obscene" amount of money in the 900 million and he believes this will destroy grass roots football he is a rather pointless idealist and his views are not rooted in the real world but in some bygone era that has long since disappeared.
Outdated, ill-informed, out of touch.
Commited, dedicated, loyal.
Football mirrors the real world we live in, market forces are in control, we have to adapt or die. The succesful rise to the top. If the premiership is getting an "obscene" amount of money in the 900 million and he believes this will destroy grass roots football he is a rather pointless idealist and his views are not rooted in the real world but in some bygone era that has long since disappeared.
Outdated, ill-informed, out of touch.
Commited, dedicated, loyal.
of course they do
you and I looking at two sides of the same coin
you are seeing the negative half, yes they can go bust
I'm seeing the positive, how did they get to where they were in the first place
yes you are correct
if results dry, money dries and united are abit stuffed
but the plan is no leeds plan where they needed to make the semis every year or something
ours is based on qualification from the group (for memory, I remember gill sayingsomething to that extent)
and the post presumes all new fans are bandwagoneers (yes I know a couple) but it seems from you oldtimers that unless you were a 'martyr' diehard type fan that started supporting united back in the 70's or something
you aren't a 'true' fan
well sorry I wasn't born then. Yes of course success draws fans, but just because you've supported united longer than some of us doesn't make you the who's who of who is a true united fan
in short I'm agreeing with what feedingseagulls is saying now that Iread his post
What I'm staggered by is the painful irony of bitching about people showing "blind allegiance" to Manchester United whilst waving around their Tippy Top Red flag about how they're so special because they showed "blind allegiance" when the club was mismanaged into relegation in the 1970s.
Tom, your comments are as always well expressed and cogently argued.
However, I feel the need to play devil's advocate in this instance. Your views on the current situation and indeed the future vis a vis United and football in general may well prove to be right. There is, however, an equal chance in my view, that your foreboding is unnecessarily negative and that things may not come to pass exactly as you predict.
I fully agree that we have a group of fans today who know nothing but the success that has been Manchester United since the early nineties. That's a period of almost seventeen years now. Who knows, perhaps the majority of fans fall into this category now. You accuse them of having "blind loyalty and blind allegiance" but surely that is what most football fans have for their clubs. United fans are no different. I certainly remember a time when I never questioned anything about United, Matt Busby or the team. It's probably the sign of advancing years which makes us a little more cynical and enquiring about what goes on around us, including the goings on at our beloved football club. It's only natural that the younger generation have such blind allegiance and are revelling in the success of the Fergie years. Come to think of it aren't we all - even the cynics amongst us.
As far as the Glazers are concerned, nobody wanted them and certainly not on their terms. However, they are here and like it or not we will have to put up with them. The word "debt" is freely banded about whenever the subject of the Glazer takeover and its ramifications are discussed. I have tried to get to the bottom of this issue and how exactly it will affect United's future both in the short and long term. I have discussed it with United fans working in corporate finance in the City, including one who advised United during the takeover battle and another whose company was at one stage involved in the debt structuring. I have also discussed it on this forum and there have been some interesting comment from some posters who actually have knowledge of these things. The conclusion is that nobody really knows. That's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned and of course it remains a worry.
Again regarding the Glazers you state that they have already achieved one of their objectives "to divide and conquer" the fans. I really can't see why that should be an objective per se. They know that if the team is successful and by extension the business all should be well both as regards their investment, which is considerable and probably far greater than any other of the new breed of football club owners including Abramovich, as well as their relationship with the vast majority of fans. There is always likely to be a vociferous minority whose raison d'etre is too be otherwise no matter what happens.
You question what good have the Glazer's done for the club. I would turn that around and say what have they done so far that has negatively impacted the club. Apart from increased ticket prices, which I think are probably completely in line with that of other major clubs, there are not many things they have done which have so far impacted negatively on the club - more particularly the football team. Fergie remains at the helm and quite happy that he has complete autonomy over the team without any interference, particularly from the Glazers. Money has been made available for new players, seeminlgy whenever it has been required. In that regard we are told that upwards of 20m will be available for the purchase of Owen Hargreaves - a ridiculous amount for this player in my view - because Fergie wants him. Finally we have been able to retain, despite quite determined alternative suitors, one of the worlds greatest talents, Cristiano Ronaldo, because we have the available finance to provide him with an acceptable financial package over the next five years. So I'm not sure where you get this idea that money has not been available because it has. You refer to the "turmoil that the takeover has caused". What turmoil is that exactly ? Perhaps all is not as black as you seem to want to paint it.
I will of course be accused of being short sighted and perhaps a little "blind" myself with regard to the Glazers. Maybe so but until I see clear evidence that they are leading the club to disaster I won't be unduly pessimistic about what the future holds. As I said before we don't know how this business plan works. Notwithstanding that, I'd still prefer not to have this situation in our midst. However, what can we, the fans, do about it which won't detrimentally affect the well being of the club. I have a feeling, just like you do the opposite, that all will be well provided, in the broadest terms, we maintain our position at the top of the football ladder.
In that regard, you pose the question, "what happens when the winning stops". Personally, I think we cannot afford to let the winning stop. Our status as the world's greatest football club and indeed the greatest football business now demands that we have on-going success. What great business contemplates not being succesfull when drawing up its plans for the future ? Of course we haven't won a major honour (with all due deference to the FAC) since 2003 which will be four seasons if this one turns out to be a disappointment. Will the whining start ? Well it hasn't so far and I don't think it will either to any great effect - at least not in the short term.
You suppose that the "singing will stop" with Fergie's eventual retirement. His leaving will of course be difficult but hopefully not traumatic. Knowing him he will leave the team in good shape for a successor. Hopefully, careful planning will go into that appointment and, with a bit of luck, success under a new and competent manager will continue. There is no reason for our United world to come to an end with Fergie's departure. There is every cause for optimism that his legacy will live on.
The quaint notion that Manchester United is or should be a "family Club" is rather naive. That may have been the case years ago but long before the Glazers came on the scene, particularly when we became a public company, the notion of the family club disappeared. The world and particularly the world of football moved on at a rapid pace and may be some tradionalists like you were left behind in its wake. We had to become a business to compete and survive. In a way it was fortunate we were at the forefront of that movement. Our magnificnet stadium and training facility as well as our team and its management bear solid witness to that.
On the broader front, your argument that English football "is heading fast towards a huge abyss" is somewhat tenuous to say the least. Where is the solid evidence to support that theory ? Yes there are huge amounts of money involved but the product remains good. The English Premiership is arguably the best league in the world, offering the greatest spectacle football has to offer week in and week out. The fact that there are three Premiership teams in the last four of the European Champions League bears witness to this great success. I see no reason why this shouldn't continue. Yes perhaps clubs in the lower divisions may suffer due to lack of finance but the Championship is offering equally, perhaps more, exciting fare as the season draws to a close with several clubs challenging for honours. The grounds are full because the product is great and remains in demand. TV is prepared to pay, perhaps over the odds, for the same reason.
This not intended to be an irrational dismissive of your comments, it is just to say that perhaps things are and will be different from the way you see them. For the moment let's just enjoy the football, despite the squeaky bums !
However, I feel the need to play devil's advocate in this instance. Your views on the current situation and indeed the future vis a vis United and football in general may well prove to be right. There is, however, an equal chance in my view, that your foreboding is unnecessarily negative and that things may not come to pass exactly as you predict.
I fully agree that we have a group of fans today who know nothing but the success that has been Manchester United since the early nineties. That's a period of almost seventeen years now. Who knows, perhaps the majority of fans fall into this category now. You accuse them of having "blind loyalty and blind allegiance" but surely that is what most football fans have for their clubs. United fans are no different. I certainly remember a time when I never questioned anything about United, Matt Busby or the team. It's probably the sign of advancing years which makes us a little more cynical and enquiring about what goes on around us, including the goings on at our beloved football club. It's only natural that the younger generation have such blind allegiance and are revelling in the success of the Fergie years. Come to think of it aren't we all - even the cynics amongst us.
As far as the Glazers are concerned, nobody wanted them and certainly not on their terms. However, they are here and like it or not we will have to put up with them. The word "debt" is freely banded about whenever the subject of the Glazer takeover and its ramifications are discussed. I have tried to get to the bottom of this issue and how exactly it will affect United's future both in the short and long term. I have discussed it with United fans working in corporate finance in the City, including one who advised United during the takeover battle and another whose company was at one stage involved in the debt structuring. I have also discussed it on this forum and there have been some interesting comment from some posters who actually have knowledge of these things. The conclusion is that nobody really knows. That's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned and of course it remains a worry.
Again regarding the Glazers you state that they have already achieved one of their objectives "to divide and conquer" the fans. I really can't see why that should be an objective per se. They know that if the team is successful and by extension the business all should be well both as regards their investment, which is considerable and probably far greater than any other of the new breed of football club owners including Abramovich, as well as their relationship with the vast majority of fans. There is always likely to be a vociferous minority whose raison d'etre is too be otherwise no matter what happens.
You question what good have the Glazer's done for the club. I would turn that around and say what have they done so far that has negatively impacted the club. Apart from increased ticket prices, which I think are probably completely in line with that of other major clubs, there are not many things they have done which have so far impacted negatively on the club - more particularly the football team. Fergie remains at the helm and quite happy that he has complete autonomy over the team without any interference, particularly from the Glazers. Money has been made available for new players, seeminlgy whenever it has been required. In that regard we are told that upwards of 20m will be available for the purchase of Owen Hargreaves - a ridiculous amount for this player in my view - because Fergie wants him. Finally we have been able to retain, despite quite determined alternative suitors, one of the worlds greatest talents, Cristiano Ronaldo, because we have the available finance to provide him with an acceptable financial package over the next five years. So I'm not sure where you get this idea that money has not been available because it has. You refer to the "turmoil that the takeover has caused". What turmoil is that exactly ? Perhaps all is not as black as you seem to want to paint it.
I will of course be accused of being short sighted and perhaps a little "blind" myself with regard to the Glazers. Maybe so but until I see clear evidence that they are leading the club to disaster I won't be unduly pessimistic about what the future holds. As I said before we don't know how this business plan works. Notwithstanding that, I'd still prefer not to have this situation in our midst. However, what can we, the fans, do about it which won't detrimentally affect the well being of the club. I have a feeling, just like you do the opposite, that all will be well provided, in the broadest terms, we maintain our position at the top of the football ladder.
In that regard, you pose the question, "what happens when the winning stops". Personally, I think we cannot afford to let the winning stop. Our status as the world's greatest football club and indeed the greatest football business now demands that we have on-going success. What great business contemplates not being succesfull when drawing up its plans for the future ? Of course we haven't won a major honour (with all due deference to the FAC) since 2003 which will be four seasons if this one turns out to be a disappointment. Will the whining start ? Well it hasn't so far and I don't think it will either to any great effect - at least not in the short term.
You suppose that the "singing will stop" with Fergie's eventual retirement. His leaving will of course be difficult but hopefully not traumatic. Knowing him he will leave the team in good shape for a successor. Hopefully, careful planning will go into that appointment and, with a bit of luck, success under a new and competent manager will continue. There is no reason for our United world to come to an end with Fergie's departure. There is every cause for optimism that his legacy will live on.
The quaint notion that Manchester United is or should be a "family Club" is rather naive. That may have been the case years ago but long before the Glazers came on the scene, particularly when we became a public company, the notion of the family club disappeared. The world and particularly the world of football moved on at a rapid pace and may be some tradionalists like you were left behind in its wake. We had to become a business to compete and survive. In a way it was fortunate we were at the forefront of that movement. Our magnificnet stadium and training facility as well as our team and its management bear solid witness to that.
On the broader front, your argument that English football "is heading fast towards a huge abyss" is somewhat tenuous to say the least. Where is the solid evidence to support that theory ? Yes there are huge amounts of money involved but the product remains good. The English Premiership is arguably the best league in the world, offering the greatest spectacle football has to offer week in and week out. The fact that there are three Premiership teams in the last four of the European Champions League bears witness to this great success. I see no reason why this shouldn't continue. Yes perhaps clubs in the lower divisions may suffer due to lack of finance but the Championship is offering equally, perhaps more, exciting fare as the season draws to a close with several clubs challenging for honours. The grounds are full because the product is great and remains in demand. TV is prepared to pay, perhaps over the odds, for the same reason.
This not intended to be an irrational dismissive of your comments, it is just to say that perhaps things are and will be different from the way you see them. For the moment let's just enjoy the football, despite the squeaky bums !
A lot of good points raised but too many for one article.
I think the underlying threat to the game is from investors in general rather the Glazers in particular. The emphasis now is much more on profit than trophies.
As Tom said, too many businessmen have made careers in the game switching their allegiance from one club to another. They have no loyalty to the club. The same can be said of many players but, generally speaking, players don't change the structure of the sport.
The need for 'certainty of investment' has led to many changes. Individually, they might not be significant but, in total, they have led to the current situation where only four clubs had any chance of winning the league this year (same again next year and the year after). It is also becoming harder to move up and remain in the Premiership.
The need for instant returns has led to increased corporate hospitality at the expense of nurturing children into matchgoers. This is not in the long-term interests of football.
The tide of popularity will turn down eventually and the money will go. Those involved in the game for financial or 'fashion' reasons will move on without much regret. They will look back at this as being some sort of glory period for football. Those left to pick up the pieces will wish the 'glory days' never happened.
I think the underlying threat to the game is from investors in general rather the Glazers in particular. The emphasis now is much more on profit than trophies.
As Tom said, too many businessmen have made careers in the game switching their allegiance from one club to another. They have no loyalty to the club. The same can be said of many players but, generally speaking, players don't change the structure of the sport.
The need for 'certainty of investment' has led to many changes. Individually, they might not be significant but, in total, they have led to the current situation where only four clubs had any chance of winning the league this year (same again next year and the year after). It is also becoming harder to move up and remain in the Premiership.
The need for instant returns has led to increased corporate hospitality at the expense of nurturing children into matchgoers. This is not in the long-term interests of football.
The tide of popularity will turn down eventually and the money will go. Those involved in the game for financial or 'fashion' reasons will move on without much regret. They will look back at this as being some sort of glory period for football. Those left to pick up the pieces will wish the 'glory days' never happened.
both sides of the argument can only really speculate. none of us know the true extent of the figures.
I started writing something along these lines, but couldn`t make it. Now I`m glad, cause you put it all better than I ever could. Very good post.
Nice to see you here again Tom, not seen you post for a while (then again I've been gone a couple of weeks so for all I know you might have been spamming the place!)
Anyway, read your thoughts, though I can't say I agree with all your concerns. I think there probably is a 'new breed' of fan, but I wouldn't say we're the only club who has this type of fan. And as for your concerns about them upping and leaving when the success goes, I think as English clubs go we perhaps have the least to worry about with falling attendences. I also think your 'new fan' is a minority component of the United match day support. The biggest threat of these supporters leaving is not losing success, but them being genuinely priced out by season after season of 14% ticket increases.
I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking the reason we've been successful this season is down to the Glazers, as I hear some claim. And I've no doubt they are still deeply resented by the vast majority. But then again I never believed the 'doomsday proficies' given by the likes of people who went off and formed another team to support. There are a lot of problems with football today, like there are in society today, and I put it purely down to Capitalist greed
Anyway, read your thoughts, though I can't say I agree with all your concerns. I think there probably is a 'new breed' of fan, but I wouldn't say we're the only club who has this type of fan. And as for your concerns about them upping and leaving when the success goes, I think as English clubs go we perhaps have the least to worry about with falling attendences. I also think your 'new fan' is a minority component of the United match day support. The biggest threat of these supporters leaving is not losing success, but them being genuinely priced out by season after season of 14% ticket increases.
I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking the reason we've been successful this season is down to the Glazers, as I hear some claim. And I've no doubt they are still deeply resented by the vast majority. But then again I never believed the 'doomsday proficies' given by the likes of people who went off and formed another team to support. There are a lot of problems with football today, like there are in society today, and I put it purely down to Capitalist greed
Good post Jason. You're talking to a wall though. Even a club as small as Behemians in Dublin have fans that adopt the similar 'elite' attitude. I mean...for feck sake Bohs were playing Shells a number of seasons back and Bohs pulled in a crowd of about 6,000 and the game was televised. Trust me, that's big for Bohs. Point being, a load of the "real" fans in the terraces were moaning about the 'blow-ins' that turned up for the 'Big Game.' It was just mind boggling how one guy would made a point so absrud to the full agreeance of his peers.
A club starts as a seed and it grows. It has to be understood that the bigger something gets the more difficult it is to maintain that old feel, especially in a world of capitalism. It's like a small company that start out. They might only have 35 - 40 employees, and the feel of the company is personal. As the company grows they need more employees to generate more income in order to better their services and increase their profits. Suddenly you have 120 employees and the personal side to the company begins to dwindle.
It's supply and demand, and anybody who stands in the terraces moaning about how things used to be, and how bad things have gotten is clearly missing some very easily spotted points.
I would absolutely LOVE if every single United fan was 110%. I would absolutely love if United were owned by the fans and that every fan was as equally giving as the next in terms of investment in the club. I would love if every fans agreed with every other fan in idiologies, principles, what to spend their money on, players that should be bought, players that should be sold and what song to sing, when, where and how. Is this reality and does this represent a country governed by Capitalism ? No. This sort of false reality stems from the likes of Plato's Republic and Thomas More's Utopia. It a lovely, wonderous and incredibly inspiring concept that simply can not work in a world where people are out to gain, grab, suck up and consume, and a successful football club moves in sych with such a society
Spot on.
money changes everything. but it's an evolutionary process. in football. look at TV revenues clubs are taking in. it's business and without that thought process there's be no ronaldo @ UNITED. there'd be tickets available as well - tickets that you could buy on match day. UNITED supporters would be watching more kids come through the "system". UNITED may not win as many titles etc - but it'd still be football.
i was lucky enough to see FC United play an away match - it was brilliant (Newcastle away). singing and standing. the game doesn't need much but 22 players and a ball.
I would still support UNITED regardless of how well they play - hell sometimes complaining about your club sparks more debate (and fun).
Remember west brom fans invading the pitch for staying up - i thought that was about as good as football gets for the fan.
i was lucky enough to see FC United play an away match - it was brilliant (Newcastle away). singing and standing. the game doesn't need much but 22 players and a ball.
I would still support UNITED regardless of how well they play - hell sometimes complaining about your club sparks more debate (and fun).
Remember west brom fans invading the pitch for staying up - i thought that was about as good as football gets for the fan.
I think the 'new breed' of fan will stay loyal even through tough times. If you go back to the 70's and 80's United still had a fanbase the envy of clubs all over the world. these fans probably gew up knowing only success throughout the 50's and 60's. During the lean times of the 70's and 80's those fans stayed absolutely diehard. I think the older fans are excellent role models explaining the history and tradition of the club and what it means to support United to younger fans.