Season Tickets - have you, will you, etc?

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

The issue with not renewing is that it means different things to different people. For Jem, arguing to not renew a season ticket he’s never owned whilst only ever attending a couple of times a year meant that his sacrifice in 2005 was negligible. And his and others messaging at the time was unhelpful because it was so easily ridiculed. For many others, including some of my mates, who hadn’t missed a home or away match for well over a decade, not renewing meant considerably more.

For them, the ownership is and will always be secondary to supporting the team - as it was for all of us when we became first united supporters. I didn’t say to myself, hang on I’m not becoming a united fan because edwards is a toss pot.

The best route back then was supporter shareholding but M&M held control over that and it became quickly apparent that too few united fans could be arsed spending £10 on a single share and that was that £#%&!ed.

It was at that point that I gave up being as arsed about the club.

the first bold part is completely disingenuous on your part.

the argument is either a sensible argument or it isn't. it doesn't make any difference if it is being made by someone with a st or without one. it's not about my personal sacrifice, but rather about what could have been effective.

also, as I even wrote above (and did in 2005), no one needed to boycott anything. the credible threat of a boycott would have put the banks off financing the takeover.

what is ridiculous is thinking that only people with sts should really have anything valid to say, because the vast majority of them are as thick as shit - narrow-minded, unimaginative, selfish sheep. I don't blame them for that; they're just people who were badly advised.

as for the second part, it was always obvious that the pitifully small amount to be raised by must would always be dwarfed by the glazer finance. you can't take them on on that basis. either chop the financing out, by scaring the financiers, or make the club worth what fans could afford to pay by effectively crippling the club (that would have involved a boycott).

the worries about futile gestures would be overcome by collective action and the worries about hurting the club in the short term (if it had even been necessary, which it wasn't) would be justified by the really rather swift gain. with hindsight (and remember, this was predicted at the time, but I am talking about your hindsight), would we have missed a couple of shitty seasons under moyes or mourinho for getting our club back?

my messaging was so easily ridiculed that you could see it on banners and posters everywhere. no customers, no profits. forever in your debt. that kind of thing. you're welcome.

but that's fine. I am trying to offer a positive solution. you are ridiculing. it should be fairly obvious which is likely to be more productive. mock away.

Originally Posted by jem

the first bold part is completely disingenuous on your part.

the argument is either a sensible argument or it isn't. it doesn't make any difference if it is being made by someone with a st or without one. it's not about my personal sacrifice, but rather about what could have been effective.

also, as I even wrote above (and did in 2005), no one needed to boycott anything. the credible threat of a boycott would have put the banks off financing the takeover.

what is ridiculous is thinking that only people with sts should really have anything valid to say, because the vast majority of them are as thick as shit - narrow-minded, unimaginative, selfish sheep. I don't blame them for that; they're just people who were badly advised.

as for the second part, it was always obvious that the pitifully small amount to be raised by must would always be dwarfed by the glazer finance. you can't take them on on that basis. either chop the financing out, by scaring the financiers, or make the club worth what fans could afford to pay by effectively crippling the club (that would have involved a boycott).

the worries about futile gestures would be overcome by collective action and the worries about hurting the club in the short term (if it had even been necessary, which it wasn't) would be justified by the really rather swift gain. with hindsight (and remember, this was predicted at the time, but I am talking about your hindsight), would we have missed a couple of shitty seasons under moyes or mourinho for getting our club back?

my messaging was so easily ridiculed that you could see it on banners and posters everywhere. no customers, no profits. forever in your debt. that kind of thing. you're welcome.

but that's fine. I am trying to offer a positive solution. you are ridiculing. it should be fairly obvious which is likely to be more productive. mock away.

Yes, those famous banners and slogans that all went to FC united with circa 2000 fans demanding 70’s soccer! Meanwhile United’s global fan base, largely oblivious,with zillions continues to munch its way through merchandise and support tv rights.

It’s not that the message was wrong - if everyone does this then this will work - it’s just £#%&!ing ridiculously naive to think that it would work and that everyone would think the same way you and a couple of others did.

But don’t get me wrong, I’ve no problem with you coming up with futile ideas pal. Knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

Yes, those famous banners and slogans that all went to FC united with circa 2000 fans demanding 70’s soccer! Meanwhile United’s global fan base, largely oblivious,with zillions continues to munch its way through merchandise and support tv rights.

It’s not that the message was wrong - if everyone does this then this will work - it’s just £#%&!ing ridiculously naive to think that it would work and that everyone would think the same way you and a couple of others did.

But don’t get me wrong, I’ve no problem with you coming up with futile ideas pal. Knock yourself out.

I didn't say the banners were effective on their own. I was merely countering your comment on ridicule.

obviously, the takeover was not blocked in the way that it might have been. that doesn't mean it couldn't have been or that it is not worth considering how things might be now.

pretty sure your attitude won't solve the world's problems. why even think about cutting out meat? why suggest tech companies should make products that last? why..... anything? hope you enjoy whatever you're smoking. leave the dreaming of a better world to the rest of us. you can always enjoy it.

it's like the last week didn't happen.

Originally Posted by est.1878

Unless everyone does the individual decision gets lost in the crowd, others step in, and absolutely futile

If one game is picked where 0pc of paid tickets turn up (percentage chance of this 0pc) would be much higher impact than season ticket sales down 25pc

Both the above sentences disgust me in terms of sentence structure.

Agree - but at least we/they have pretty much killed off the 40k waiting list.

I suppose next step would be a show of force - for example, if no fans went into the ground until five minutes into the match, it would show that we're more capable of organising this time. Not they will, as you say.

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

Agree - but at least we/they have pretty much killed off the 40k waiting list.

I suppose next step would be a show of force - for example, if no fans went into the ground until five minutes into the match, it would show that we're more capable of organising this time. Not they will, as you say.

Know someone who volunteered on the su/must stall outside ot pre takeover. Iirc relayed most people apathetic (superfluous a) when asked about ownership, and a more than a handful actually verbally abused him.

This time round, people have wised up...

Originally Posted by est.1878

Know someone who volunteered on the su/must stall outside ot pre takeover. Iirc relayed most people apathetic (superfluous a) when asked about ownership, and a more than a handful actually verbally abused him.

This time round, people have wised up...

A shame. Still got my SU certificate. Found it the other day when tidying up a pile of old memorabilia along with a copy of RI from around that time which took the piss out of Ferdinand and Kenyon.

<slightly off topic>Also found a programme (price 3d.) from April 57, away vs Luton Town. Programme had us listed as Wood, Byrne, Foulkes, Edwards, Blanchflower, Colman, Pegg, Viollet, Taylor, Whelan and Berry. Team had four changes with Goodwin in for Colman, Scanlon for Pegg, Charlton for Viollet and Viollet for Whelan in a 2-3-5.

Originally Posted by jem

I didn't say the banners were effective on their own. I was merely countering your comment on ridicule.

obviously, the takeover was not blocked in the way that it might have been. that doesn't mean it couldn't have been or that it is not worth considering how things might be now.

pretty sure your attitude won't solve the world's problems. why even think about cutting out meat? why suggest tech companies should make products that last? why..... anything? hope you enjoy whatever you're smoking. leave the dreaming of a better world to the rest of us. you can always enjoy it.

it's like the last week didn't happen.

The share route was the one that was capable, at least in principle, of working and that’s the one that needed to be pursued in 2004/05. I can remember someone telling me how many shares supporters owned and it was minuscule. It could have worked though - it allowed people to do what they wanted to do ie support the team but also become invested in it.

The ‘not one penny’ lads were a bit stupid imv - no offence. Just unrealistic fir people to give up something that they love - especially when you live in higher Broughton and it’s the best thing that’s available to you to do.

I can remember someone from St Albans with a £#%&!ing annual membership telling me and my mates that we all had to give up our st’s.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

The share route was the one that was capable, at least in principle, of working and that’s the one that needed to be pursued in 2004/05. I can remember someone telling me how many shares supporters owned and it was minuscule. It could have worked though - it allowed people to do what they wanted to do ie support the team but also become invested in it.

The ‘not one penny’ lads were a bit stupid imv - no offence. Just unrealistic fir people to give up something that they love - especially when you live in higher Broughton and it’s the best thing that’s available to you to do.

I can remember someone from St Albans with a £#%&!ing annual membership telling me and my mates that we all had to give up our st’s.

Can't remember if someone answered this previously but RI made a big deal of the '91 share issue happening around the Rotterdam final and reds were skint. In the intervening years was it realistically possible for an SU type vehicle to build up enough shares to block or did Edwards do some manoeuvring after the initial issue to make it impossible?

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

The share route was the one that was capable, at least in principle, of working and that’s the one that needed to be pursued in 2004/05.

well, it would be very easy for me to say (again) that there was never any chance of raising the money required. as you can see from how much money was raised. it was pursued and it failed. dismally.

except that I agree in principle - if everyone had acted collectively, it would have cost all those across the world who profess to support united a fiver each.

how naive.

the point about boycotting is that it wouldn't have cost anything at all. and no one need miss a single minute of a game. because it merely had to be a credible threat. of course, if the threat had to be seen through, it would have turned out ok in the end.

you could have caught up on the sleep you would have had watching van gaal's team some other time.

it would have worked, though. bankers hate uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

Can't remember if someone answered this previously but RI made a big deal of the '91 share issue happening around the Rotterdam final and reds were skint. In the intervening years was it realistically possible for an SU type vehicle to build up enough shares to block or did Edwards do some manoeuvring after the initial issue to make it impossible?

Yeah, remember 91 was bad timing. From memory, the numbers of shares needed was scary and beyond individual supporters - but not if more supporter-model friendly institutional style investors had come in under a Jim Radcliffe type figure rather than that militant driving instructor we got telling us all what to do. We needed Jim R type leading a supporters trust style push.

When that failed - the game was up for me - trying to persuade everyone to boycott was always stupid and has proven to be time and time again.

Have one, will cave and renew. Again.

Originally Posted by est.1878

Unless everyone does the individual decision gets lost in the crowd, others step in, and absolutely futile

If one game is picked where 0pc of paid tickets turn up (percentage chance of this 0pc) would be much higher impact than season ticket sales down 25pc

Both the above sentences disgust me in terms of sentence structure.

Yep, its the old tragedy of the commons thing again.

Gave mine up after 20 years in 2005 but the Glazer thing was just the final nail of a number of reasons. Think the Rio thing happened not too soon before and I just thought to myself "why the £#%&! am I spending best part of 10 grand a year to follow these around the world and they couldn't give a flying £#%&! about me"

Did two years of FC with my grandad which was fun but the football was never for me.

Still bitter

There is an option to defer your ticket for a year this season because of COVID and still retain it. Surely it’s a no brainier.

Originally Posted by jem

the first bold part is completely disingenuous on your part.

the argument is either a sensible argument or it isn't. it doesn't make any difference if it is being made by someone with a st or without one. it's not about my personal sacrifice, but rather about what could have been effective.

also, as I even wrote above (and did in 2005), no one needed to boycott anything. the credible threat of a boycott would have put the banks off financing the takeover.

It’s a fair point tbh. If there’s one thing the banks weren’t doing in 2005, it was taking risks.

On the waiting list.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

It’s a fair point tbh. If there’s one thing the banks weren’t doing in 2005, it was taking risks.

I defer to your superior knowledge of the banking world.

Originally Posted by Furry Russian hats

There is an option to defer your ticket for a year this season because of COVID and still retain it. Surely it’s a no brainier.

You may lose that specific seat though so depends how much you value where you are.

https://twitter.com/stirling061/status/1386271193435713536?s=21

deferred.