No!!!!!!!!!!! Major Bad News!!! (6 Viewers)

#10

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2002
7,377
++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++
Y'all know what? If Glazer had come in and stated his ambition was to teach the Commie at Chelsea how to spend dough like a real Yankee, I bet not one Man U fan would be whining about it.
i think glazer would lose there, roman has spent on players AND on the club in general.

Glazer has jus put the firm into debt...so far 3-0 to the commies.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
++ [ originally posted by chxta ] ++
Do you work for the New York Times Swag?
I get that all the time. ;) But no.

While I do work for a media company, and while I do subscribe to the Sunday NY Times here on the Left Coast (instead of that birdcage liner they call a newspaper around here) - I do not work for them. I don't even work on their crossword puzzles for that matter.
 
OP

Nicole

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2004
7,561
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #207
    ++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++
    Once Glazer does so, as he's said within the next 20 days, he can say to SU, "So long, suckas!!!!!"
    Wrong, Shareholders United have a combined total of 17%, and whilst that is like that he can NEVER get 90% and force SU hand.
     
    OP

    Nicole

    Senior Member
    Sep 16, 2004
    7,561
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #208
    ++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++
    Y'all know what? If Glazer had come in and stated his ambition was to teach the Commie at Chelsea how to spend dough like a real Yankee, I bet not one Man U fan would be whining about it.
    Thats where your wrong, we dont care about how much money he'd sepdn, we dont care at all, its OUR club, a club for the people and fans! WE DONT WANT ANY OWNER AT ALL, WE ARENT AS CHEAP AS CHELSEA!
     
    Feb 26, 2005
    591
    ++ [ originally posted by Nicole ] ++
    Thats where your wrong, we dont care about how much money he'd sepdn, we dont care at all, its OUR club, a club for the people and fans! WE DONT WANT ANY OWNER AT ALL, WE ARENT AS CHEAP AS CHELSEA!
    Nicole, sorry to break it to you like this, but Manchester United never belonged to the fans. It belonged to a succession of families, then some lucky speculators on the stock market. And Supporters United with their 17% is only entitled to receive the company newspaper from now on.
     

    Chxta

    Onye kwe, Chi ya ekwe
    Nov 1, 2004
    12,088
    ++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++

    Nicole, sorry to break it to you like this, but Manchester United never belonged to the fans. It belonged to a succession of families, then some lucky speculators on the stock market. And Supporters United with their 17% is only entitled to receive the company newspaper from now on.
    :rofl:
     
    OP

    Nicole

    Senior Member
    Sep 16, 2004
    7,561
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #211
    ++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++

    Nicole, sorry to break it to you like this, but Manchester United never belonged to the fans. It belonged to a succession of families, then some lucky speculators on the stock market. And Supporters United with their 17% is only entitled to receive the company newspaper from now on.
    Perhaps, but without 90% he cant force SU hand to sell him all of them, at least with 17% we can stop him taking the most extreme measures.
     
    Feb 26, 2005
    591
    You cant do anything. Your only chance of making any nosie is if he keeps the comapny public, and then, there's still precious little you can do. A private company on the other hand is allowed to run itself as it pleases. And, once he delists the company and it goes private, the minority shareholders lose most of the protection of the law, and the law always frowns at stopping the majority shareholder(s) of a private company from doing what they want, unless they can show that the majority are trying to defraud the club or worse. Any decision taken in the ordinary course of business such as creating perpetual charges on company property (e.g leasing Old Trafford back to Manchester United) or increasing the costs of goods and services (e.g increased ticket prices) etc., will not be disturbed by any court. The only hope would be to create a deadlock on the board, but since it's going to be full of Glazer's hand-picked yes-men, I think it's safe to say that Supporters United is well and truly up the creek. Without a boat, much less a paddle.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,795
    ++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++

    Nicole, sorry to break it to you like this, but Manchester United never belonged to the fans. It belonged to a succession of families, then some lucky speculators on the stock market. And Supporters United with their 17% is only entitled to receive the company newspaper from now on.
    Nice truths there, Oria. Well, and very comedically, said.

    I know of one example of where the fans do own a club, and that's the Green Bay Packers in the NFL. But otherwise, the fans are mostly customers, really. All team supporters of virtually any team pretty much have to deal with that fact.

    Unless Manu fans can cough up the money themselves to buy a majority of the public shares outright, they will remain little more than customers in that regard ... and are entitled to the rights of customers, but no more and no less.
     

    gray

    Senior Member
    Moderator
    Apr 22, 2003
    30,260
    'United failure could cost Nike deal'

    Manchester United have been warned by major sponsors Nike that a continued lack of success could cost them dear.

    The sportswear manufacturers began a 13-year kit deal with the Red Devils in August 2002 worth up to £303million to the Old Trafford club.

    However, it is reported that a get-out clause will allow Nike to decide in July next year whether to continue that agreement past the 2007-08 season.

    And vice-president of sports marketing Ian Todd has admitted his company will be monitoring United's progress following their failure to win a trophy last season.

    Todd told The Sunday Telegraph: 'We don't know what is going to happen next year. All options are open.

    'Chelsea won the league this year, Arsenal won the FA Cup and Liverpool won the Champions League. So you could argue that Manchester United is only the fourth-best club in England at the moment.

    'If, for example, Manchester United failed to qualify for the Champions League next season, that might be a problem. We will look very carefully at this situation, as we do with all our sponsorship agreements.'
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,795
    ManU not qualifying for the CL? I think a lot more at the club will be at stake than "just" a Nike sponsorship, that's for sure.
     

    baggio

    Senior Member
    Jun 3, 2003
    19,250
    Its so funny, how two seasons of mediocre football can be so detrimental to a team. I think, the repecurssions are going to hit the club harder than some expect. Thier era to me, seems over.
     
    OP

    Nicole

    Senior Member
    Sep 16, 2004
    7,561
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #220
    I hope Nike do leave, anything to make less profit come into the club, if we have to put ourselves in the championship to get rid of him, then thats where we are going!
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 6)