Why do you think the boycott has failed to attract the support of the large majority of Utd fans?

Not a rhetorical question.

there's a boycott?

the vast majority support the football team and its history, not the football business itself. You'll not find many who seriously buy the idea United could cease to challenge at the top as a result of the takeover. I certainly don't, therefore I do not boycott.

It would be nice to think that we could do well enough quickly enough that a megarich United fan could come in for us any day soon. But what's the chances of that happening?

Simply because most people just want to go to the match, enjoy it and go home.

And who can blame them?

The reason it failed to attract me is home games are in Bury £#%&!ing miles away from Manchester.

Why? because it was £#%&!ing pointless to begin with, that's why.

When there's literally hundreds of millions of pounds changing hands, a few people putting up their umbrellas in the local Vodafone shop is akin to trying to stab an elephant to death with a thumb-tack.

There is also the fact that for every person that decided to boycott there was at least one person willing to take their place, a boycott was never going to be successful because for it to work you need 100% support.

Originally Posted by Sparky6899

Why? because it was £#%&!ing pointless to begin with, that's why.

When there's literally hundreds of millions of pounds changing hands, a few people putting up their umbrellas in the local Vodafone shop is akin to trying to stab an elephant to death with a thumb-tack.

You're right there, Sparky.

Also, as others have pointed out, the majority of United fans only care about what is going on on the pitch unfortunately, while not giving a £#%&! who's in charge and what debt there is.

I don't think su are blameless either. What's their money for? Surely they could do something more creative with it than becoming a building society.

Also they had Fergie go out of his way to encourage joins and then he gets accused of selling the club out when people don't bother.

Look in the mirror. As with the boycott, it was the modern-day apathy by the majority that failed United. Not Fergie.

Originally Posted by armchair

I don't think su are blameless either. What's their money for? Surely they could do something more creative with it than becoming a building society.

Also they had Fergie go out of his way to encourage joins and then he gets accused of selling the club out when people don't bother.

Look in the mirror. As with the boycott, it was the modern-day apathy by the majority that failed United. Not Fergie.

I would agree with all of that.

As sad as this may sound, i'd say out of our overall support, less than 10% even gave a £#%&! about the takeover and about 30% even know who Glazer is and what he's done to the club.

We're £#%&!ing shit when it comes to stuff like boycotts and protests and for a club of our size and the reputation we have, or once had for sticking together as a group of supporters, its £#%&!ing pathetic.

Originally Posted by King Schlong

As sad as this may sound, i'd say out of our overall support, less than 10% even gave a £#%&! about the takeover and about 30% even know who Glazer is and what he's done to the club.

We're £#%&!ing shit when it comes to stuff like boycotts and protests and for a club of our size and the reputation we have, or once had for sticking together as a group of supporters, its £#%&!ing pathetic.

I have to agree. I don't believe we have the 'greatest support' in the world. We have the biggest support but that's about it. In terms of togetherness and unification - we're £#%&!ing shite. There's no common ground anymore and we couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. And I'm not just talking about the boycott/takeover - I mean in general.

Our 'global status' has bread a new generation of passive supporters who will take anything served on a plate.

Unless we stop winning things - then all of a sudden things might start happening which is of course no coincidence.

what you £#%&!in on about, Geoffrey Boycott is a United fan, he may be from the wrong side of the M62 but he's a Red

The idea that our support is too diverse and couldn't organise a protest if we tried is fair enough. But it ignores the simple reality that the vast majority were not, and still are not, interested in a boycott. This isn't because they can't, whether they could or not. And it's not because they're apathetic to the fortunes of the football club as oppose to the team, whether they are or not. It is because they don't want to - most people do not see it that United is presently in any trouble at all, whether they acknowledge the possibility that things might, potentially, could possibly, perhaps, given certain scenarios, go pear-shaped, or whether they do not. Old Trafford is sold out for virtually every United match, which says plenty.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

the vast majority support the football team and its history, not the football business itself. You'll not find many who seriously buy the idea United could cease to challenge at the top as a result of the takeover. I certainly don't, therefore I do not boycott.

It would be nice to think that we could do well enough quickly enough that a megarich United fan could come in for us any day soon. But what's the chances of that happening?

nail on head,

great post

right so all this post proves is the majority don't give a £#%&! as long as there's 11 men on the pitch. Which in a way is fair enough. There was never a fight to begin with then.

Just think if we were 6th place, in no cup competitions and with another ticket price hike (as well as a less full stadium) we might not be having the same conversation.

As fortunes have had it - it couldn't have gone better for the Glazer family.

that sounds like a criticism. It's not.

If this was always the case - then why did people bother in the first place? it would of saved alot of anguish and in fighting.

Originally Posted by Edward #@&%!hands

right so all this post proves is the majority don't give a £#%&! as long as there's 11 men on the pitch. Which in a way is fair enough. There was never a fight to begin with then.

Just think if we were 6th place, in no cup competitions and with another ticket price hike (as well as a less full stadium) we might not be having the same conversation.

As fortunes have had it - it couldn't have gone better for the Glazer family.

The vast majority do give a £#%&!, but they don't see the same potential for meltdown as the overwhelming minority do. That's why the vast majoruty weren't ever involved in the protests you speak of.

If we were a sixth place team we wouldn't be having this conversation because we wouldn't make as much money, we wouldn't be on tele so much and the business world wouldn't be so interested in us.

As for our fortunes, I must be a soothsayer cus I saw it coming a while back. Looks like I wasn't the only one. Have you seen our youth squad!

Regarding the question of what SU are doing with their money.

I pulled out my money when I felt I didn't see them doing anything with it to help Utd in the situation the club found itself in.

I suggested that we should have come to an arrangement with these "investors" regarding options to build up a minority stake in the club over a long period of time. A concrete arrangement which would see the club ultimately being owned by the fans. Ideally, in the interim, this would have included some form of elected representative that could sit in on board meetings.

This could have been funded by an optional levy on season tickets, MUTV subscriptions, merchandising, all of which would have flowed into the fan's trust and put towards purchasing additional stakes in the club year by year.

I dunno, I think it might have worked. Clearly it's a little too close to "helping the Glazers" for a lot of people's tastes but it would set the ball rolling for ultimate fan ownership.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

as the overwhelming minority do.

What's an overwhelming minority mate?