Worried about the debt at United ? What are YOU going to do about it?

Originally Posted by borsuk

my tuppenceworth...


the supporters who care have little ability to influence the club in any way, unfortunately. this was shown very clearly during the takeover when united supporters - and, despite the failure, this is something to be proud of - did mobilise and oppose the takeover in ways that no other club has managed. for all the jibes about prawn cocktail sandwiches, ooters and all the rest of it we did more to fight that takeover than any other club has ever managed - a boycott, must, the phoenix fund, the setting up of fcum, direct action. it failed, but compare the way united supporters fought the takeover to the way all sorts of clubs have bent over and taken it up the arse (city numerous times, liverpool, chelsea, newcastle etc). of course, it's different when it's a sugar daddy putting cash in but even so i think as united supporters we did what we could.

but it failed. and the harsh truth is that there is nothing we can do which will not serve to hasten the very end which we fear. financial protests, if effective, would make the financial situation of the club even worse.

personally, i don't think there is a way to deal with this focusing on one club only. some kind of tacky short-term solution to the immediate problems might appear - i.e. somebody with an obscene amount of wealth might want to acquire the club as a toy - but imo the only way to deal with the issue longer-term is through regulation which affects all clubs. that's not as far-fetched as it might appear: there is quite a lot of pressure building for clubs to be more tightly regulated in terms of finances and debt, with the bundesliga especially active in trying to level the playing field and stop english clubs using debt to gain on-field advantages. uefa is similarly active.

what is needed imo is a broad approach which builds awareness and support for football reform which will affect all clubs. that means keeping the issue in the public eye (something united supporters are uniquely placed to do) by organised protests which cameras will pick up on: co-ordinated standing protests across the stadium, fans turning their backs on the pitch at the start of the game etc - anything that will keep the issue in the media. it mean united supporters backing ideas like platini's, not taking the easy route and slagging him off just for the sake of it. it means getting involved with groups like supporters direct, pressuring the all-party football group in the commons, pressuring the ministry of culture etc.

there is pressure building for sustainable models and stronger regulation, and there are alternative models to the english model of football speculation. that's the direction that united supporters should go in because action focusing on only our club will get nowhere.


btw, in answer to the original question, i joined shareholders united (vs the murdoch takeover) and was a member of must at the time of the glazer takeover, i paid into the phoenix fund, i supported fcum by being a member, despite living abroad and having no intention of going to a game, and i wrote as many letters and emails as i physically could at the time. but it was doomed to failure because no one club and remove itself from the system - united was a plc and that made it just another business.


if you want to do something, i recommend doing something about football as a whole. join supporters direct, read the all-party football group's report and start contributing to the pressure that exists to reform football. write to your mp. go and see him/her. write to your euro mp. go and see him/her - this is very important as i think the european parliament route is far more fruitful than westminster, because there is a solid constituency of euro mps from germany and other countries who are keen to reform the system.


and if you're thinking 'yeah, write letters, that'll help ' they you really are part of the problem. any reform - any reform - is impeded by the apathy of its proponents at least as much as by the entrenched positions and power of its opponents. you can only achieve these kinds of changes by doing what you can, even if it seems pointless, and trusting that your tiny effort will be replicated by millions of others.


imho.



http://www.ukpolitical.info/Finder.htm

http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/your-meps/your-meps

http://www.allpartyfootball.com/

http://www.supporters-direct.org/home.asp?cat=engwal

Great post as always.

Speaking as a proud member of MUST since the shysters put this great club into shit street, it pains me to say it but we were always fighting against the tide, but the widespread apathy didn't help and even now it is still there.

Borsuk is right that United are a small part of a much wider issue about club ownership, regulation and governance. This much we know:

1. Supporters Trusts cannot provide a suitable remedy for clubs that are already in trouble. The Trust model is an ambulance and basically all that is left when clubs are in their death throes. They do work at building clubs from the ground up such as FCUM, Wimbledon, Enfield Town FC. This is not surprising there is a reason why private individuals have abandoned the clubs because they are effectively bankrupt.

2. Most clubs are in financial peril from the Premier League downwards, few are on a sound business footing. Portsmouth, United, Liverpool, Wigan etc. The wages ratio is out of hand. Private individuals are propping up many clubs from Chelsea to Division 2. A domestic salary cap is not the answer, look at Rugby where players are moving to France where there is no cap. If Italy or Spain were unrestrained the marketable players would swiftly move. Even a UEFA wide cap would be problematic, potentially unlawful and open to abuse.

3. The 'fit and proper person' test is unworkable the football authorities may have the inclination to run an ethical ship but the mechanics are beyond them. Trying to unravel the owners of these clubs is incredibly difficult, look at Portsmouth or Leeds and imagine the intricacies of private hedge funds, shell companies, offshore investment vehicles.

4. This Government and the next will hardly be concerned about the ownership of clubs given the economic situation. It wont even make the lowest priority list (at the moment).

5. There will have to be the collapse of a major club (bigger than Leeds, Portsmouth, West Ham, Southampton) or clubs before there is any action. It needs a Liverpool or United to face going under but this is unlikely until there is no one with deep pockets left. Maybe a group at one time would provoke some reaction.


Who's fault? Tottenham trod the Plc route first but it's hardly surprising that capitalism seeks to commodify our culture so it was only a matter of time.

Our best hope is Europe both the EU and Uefa to try and impose Europe wide regulation and the treatment of sport (football) not as purely a business but as a cultural artifact that requires and deserves protection.

This is not as unlikely as it seems as the role of Sport within the EU is changing and there is still a large naturally social democratic voice. We need to join and build European Supporters groups to exert pressure on the European Parliament and Commission.

Of course the Germans will just piss themselves laughing as we implode....

Originally Posted by redmike

Great post as always.

Speaking as a proud member of MUST since the shysters put this great club into shit street, it pains me to say it but we were always fighting against the tide, but the widespread apathy didn't help and even now it is still there.

True, unfortunately, even in this thread

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Borsuk is right that United are a small part of a much wider issue about club ownership, regulation and governance. This much we know:

1. Supporters Trusts cannot provide a suitable remedy for clubs that are already in trouble. The Trust model is an ambulance and basically all that is left when clubs are in their death throes. They do work at building clubs from the ground up such as FCUM, Wimbledon, Enfield Town FC. This is not surprising there is a reason why private individuals have abandoned the clubs because they are effectively bankrupt.

2. Most clubs are in financial peril from the Premier League downwards, few are on a sound business footing. Portsmouth, United, Liverpool, Wigan etc. The wages ratio is out of hand. Private individuals are propping up many clubs from Chelsea to Division 2. A domestic salary cap is not the answer, look at Rugby where players are moving to France where there is no cap. If Italy or Spain were unrestrained the marketable players would swiftly move. Even a UEFA wide cap would be problematic, potentially unlawful and open to abuse.

3. The 'fit and proper person' test is unworkable the football authorities may have the inclination to run an ethical ship but the mechanics are beyond them. Trying to unravel the owners of these clubs is incredibly difficult, look at Portsmouth or Leeds and imagine the intricacies of private hedge funds, shell companies, offshore investment vehicles.

4. This Government and the next will hardly be concerned about the ownership of clubs given the economic situation. It wont even make the lowest priority list (at the moment).

5. There will have to be the collapse of a major club (bigger than Leeds, Portsmouth, West Ham, Southampton) or clubs before there is any action. It needs a Liverpool or United to face going under but this is unlikely until there is no one with deep pockets left. Maybe a group at one time would provoke some reaction.


Who's fault? Tottenham trod the Plc route first but it's hardly surprising that capitalism seeks to commodify our culture so it was only a matter of time.

Our best hope is Europe both the EU and Uefa to try and impose Europe wide regulation and the treatment of sport (football) not as purely a business but as a cultural artifact that requires and deserves protection.

This is not as unlikely as it seems as the role of Sport within the EU is changing and there is still a large naturally social democratic voice. We need to join and build European Supporters groups to exert pressure on the European Parliament and Commission.

Of course the Germans will just piss themselves laughing as we implode....

I don't think you can look much futher then the FA. A snap shot of society in from 1863. Ditching Rule 34 was the first of many mistakes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007...all.newsstory1

The FA once took a robust view that clubs were not there for owners or directors to exploit. In 1899, just as professional, commercialised football was taking off, the FA imposed rules to protect the clubs' sporting heart. These allowed clubs to form limited companies, but prohibited directors from being paid, restricted the dividends to shareholders, and protected grounds from asset-stripping.

Later codified as the FA's Rule 34, these restrictions established the culture that being a club director was a form of public service, that directors should be 'custodians', to support and look after clubs. There never was a golden age of selfless club owners, but the system of clubs as not-for-profit companies did provide the basis for their phenomenal growth. Fans were never overcharged, which helped to encourage loyalty and return visits. But it was not all good news: lack of investment led to decrepit facilities, a failure to deal with hooliganism and crumbling and unsafe grounds.

The FA and their rules were in need of updating as football itself changed and modernised, but instead they surrendered completely. When, in 1983, Irving Scholar's Tottenham Hotspur became the first club to announce the intention of floating on the stock market, the club's advisers asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to evade the FA's restrictions on dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, who have never explained why, permitted Spurs to do what they wanted. Every other club that floated after that formed holding companies similarly, to bypass the FA's rules.

Originally Posted by redwhiteandblack

The FA once took a robust view that clubs were not there for owners or directors to exploit. In 1899, just as professional, commercialised football was taking off, the FA imposed rules to protect the clubs' sporting heart. These allowed clubs to form limited companies, but prohibited directors from being paid, restricted the dividends to shareholders, and protected grounds from asset-stripping.

Later codified as the FA's Rule 34, these restrictions established the culture that being a club director was a form of public service, that directors should be 'custodians', to support and look after clubs. There never was a golden age of selfless club owners, but the system of clubs as not-for-profit companies did provide the basis for their phenomenal growth. Fans were never overcharged, which helped to encourage loyalty and return visits. But it was not all good news: lack of investment led to decrepit facilities, a failure to deal with hooliganism and crumbling and unsafe grounds.

The FA and their rules were in need of updating as football itself changed and modernised, but instead they surrendered completely. When, in 1983, Irving Scholar's Tottenham Hotspur became the first club to announce the intention of floating on the stock market, the club's advisers asked the FA if Spurs would be free to form a holding company to evade the FA's restrictions on dividends and directors' salaries. The FA, who have never explained why, permitted Spurs to do what they wanted. Every other club that floated after that formed holding companies similarly, to bypass the FA's rules.

One of the main problems was the lack of investment in old grounds which can be seem through the series of football disasters. The old model of ownership would have required Government investment to rebuild and modernise many of the grounds which of course never came. Some clubs had invested where they had wealthy owners. Of course the period of the 1980's was when the market was seen as the solution to everything and look at what's happened, British gas, British steel, British Coal, football is just another commodity raped by the market.

Great post Borsuk.

Keithingtons

Originally Posted by redhegemony

1. Supporters Trusts cannot provide a suitable remedy for clubs that are already in trouble. The Trust model is an ambulance and basically all that is left when clubs are in their death throes. They do work at building clubs from the ground up such as FCUM, Wimbledon, Enfield Town FC. This is not surprising there is a reason why private individuals have abandoned the clubs because they are effectively bankrupt.

2. Most clubs are in financial peril from the Premier League downwards, few are on a sound business footing. Portsmouth, United, Liverpool, Wigan etc. The wages ratio is out of hand. Private individuals are propping up many clubs from Chelsea to Division 2. A domestic salary cap is not the answer, look at Rugby where players are moving to France where there is no cap. If Italy or Spain were unrestrained the marketable players would swiftly move. Even a UEFA wide cap would be problematic, potentially unlawful and open to abuse.

3. The 'fit and proper person' test is unworkable the football authorities may have the inclination to run an ethical ship but the mechanics are beyond them. Trying to unravel the owners of these clubs is incredibly difficult, look at Portsmouth or Leeds and imagine the intricacies of private hedge funds, shell companies, offshore investment vehicles.

4. This Government and the next will hardly be concerned about the ownership of clubs given the economic situation. It wont even make the lowest priority list (at the moment).

5. There will have to be the collapse of a major club (bigger than Leeds, Portsmouth, West Ham, Southampton) or clubs before there is any action. It needs a Liverpool or United to face going under but this is unlikely until there is no one with deep pockets left. Maybe a group at one time would provoke some reaction.


Who's fault? Tottenham trod the Plc route first but it's hardly surprising that capitalism seeks to commodify our culture so it was only a matter of time.

Our best hope is Europe both the EU and Uefa to try and impose Europe wide regulation and the treatment of sport (football) not as purely a business but as a cultural artifact that requires and deserves protection.

This is not as unlikely as it seems as the role of Sport within the EU is changing and there is still a large naturally social democratic voice. We need to join and build European Supporters groups to exert pressure on the European Parliament and Commission.

Of course the Germans will just piss themselves laughing as we implode....

What he said. Great poinst redhegemoney.

of course people are apathetic - they cant stir their ignorant arses to give a shit about issues like using their hard earned to line the pockets of the people that caused the economy to collapse, so they are hardly likely to give a shit about this. most people in this country are just too stupid to understand the problem.

Originally Posted by irk

of course people are apathetic - they cant stir their ignorant arses to give a shit about issues like using their hard earned to line the pockets of the people that caused the economy to collapse, so they are hardly likel to give a shit about this. most people in this country are just to stupid to understand the problem.

yes and no. there's a lot of (highly effective) propaganda on economic issues telling people that they can't understand it and should leave it to those who do - that's the main reason, imo, for the populace's apathy with regard to the financial sector.

with regard to football it's quite different imo. in this area people are conditioned to be experts - there's not a supporter alive who hasn't got an opinion on the team's players, tactics etc - and can be very active. besides, there is pressure already for reform. in many ways the premier league is the odd one out in european leagues and the glazers represent a problem for the system, rather than representing the system iteself.


as far as reform goes, there are two steps necessary. the first is for football to gain special legal status enabling it to exempt itself from certain elements of european law. this is, in fact, already the case as otherwise players would be treated as normal workers and teams could, for example, sign up players on one-match contracts (ronaldo coming back to united to play in a cl final, for example), or the same player could be employed part-time for two clubs etc.

the second step is to implement the sort of rules platini has been talking about. there are really three key ones:

• a ban on the international transfer of players under 18
• a limit on spending on transfers and wages (set as a proportion of revenue)
• an obligation for clubs whose turnover is over a certain threshold, over a period of time, to balance their books or break even

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/k...id=886803.html


as i said, it needs everybody to contribute to the pressure.



i stuck up a bunch of links in my first post and another above. i wonder how many people on here, while ginding their teeth at the gimps, have actually read the 'financial fair play' ideas from uefa, or the all-party football group's report, let alone bothered to try to push for their implementation.

this is becoming muddled

football doesn't need any special legal exemption to restrict movement of players at all. football is a sport, and as such it has competition rules. these include rules about player transfers and player participation in competitions and always have done.

surely the populace's apathy with the finance sector is largely down to a basic tolerance of the system's unfairness. the major success of the propoganda is surely seen in the way people compete with one another for the scraps that have been dangled by the top 1 or 2%? is there anything more pathetic than a bloke defending the system because he happens to earn around twice the average income? most of the people who don't get it really aren't interested. it's not because they are apathetic, it's because it almost literally has absolutely £#%&! all to do with their lives, other than that of course they are forced to be part of it. it's like underpants; most people wear them but only to keep the shit off our clothing.

Originally Posted by borsuk

yes and no. there's a lot of (highly effective) propaganda on economic issues telling people that they can't understand it and should leave it to those who do - that's the main reason, imo, for the populace's apathy with regard to the financial sector.

with regard to football it's quite different imo. in this area people are conditioned to be experts - there's not a supporter alive who hasn't got an opinion on the team's players, tactics etc - and can be very active. besides, there is pressure already for reform. in many ways the premier league is the odd one out in european leagues and the glazers represent a problem for the system, rather than representing the system iteself.


as far as reform goes, there are two steps necessary. the first is for football to gain special legal status enabling it to exempt itself from certain elements of european law. this is, in fact, already the case as otherwise players would be treated as normal workers and teams could, for example, sign up players on one-match contracts (ronaldo coming back to united to play in a cl final, for example), or the same player could be employed part-time for two clubs etc.

the second step is to implement the sort of rules platini has been talking about. there are really three key ones:

• a ban on the international transfer of players under 18
• a limit on spending on transfers and wages (set as a proportion of revenue)
• an obligation for clubs whose turnover is over a certain threshold, over a period of time, to balance their books or break even

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/k...id=886803.html


as i said, it needs everybody to contribute to the pressure.



i stuck up a bunch of links in my first post and another above. i wonder how many people on here, while ginding their teeth at the gimps, have actually read the 'financial fair play' ideas from uefa, or the all-party football group's report, let alone bothered to try to push for their implementation.

There are discussions taking place about a European Sports law and what it might look like and how sports cultural values can be protected and for me this is the only route of salvation and a return to decent values.

However it requires the Commission to accept that sport is not just another business.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

this is becoming muddled

football doesn't need any special legal exemption to restrict movement of players at all. football is a sport, and as such it has competition rules. these include rules about player transfers and player participation in competitions and always have done.

surely the populace's apathy with the finance sector is largely down to a basic tolerance of the system's unfairness. the major success of the propoganda is surely seen in the way people compete with one another for the scraps that have been dangled by the top 1 or 2%? is there anything more pathetic than a bloke defending the system because he happens to earn around twice the average income? most of the people who don't get it really aren't interested. it's not because they are apathetic, it's because it almost literally has absolutely £#%&! all to do with their lives, other than that of course they are forced to be part of it. it's like underpants; most people wear them but only to keep the shit off our clothing.

2 issues have been put together the first is the protection of 'minors' from being traded around the globe but we have to be careful about this. Denying a young 16 year old african the right to earn a fortune in Europe needs thinking about carefully.

The major issue is to treat football and sport differently from washing powder and recognise its social and cultural significance. This would allow for protective measures in terms of regulation and governance. Freedom of movement could be one issue but the central point is around ownership and then the transmission of matches.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

The major issue is to treat football and sport differently from washing powder and recognise its social and cultural significance. This would allow for protective measures in terms of regulation and governance. Freedom of movement could be one issue but the central point is around ownership and then the transmission of matches.

correct. there are competing regulatory systems in conflict here: clubs as businesses and clubs as sporting institutions. the latter regulatory apparatus will not win in a legal conflict, as the bosman ruling showed.

the only defence sporting regulations can mount is to threaten to exclude a given club from competition but this is increasingly ineffective and the larger clubs can simply take their ball and go home - i.e. start their own competition. the premier league itself and the putative european super league are examples.


btw, i sent off a few emails this morning (to the relevant Minister and the shadow equivalents) asking for clarification of each party's position regarding platini's proposals:

Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Culture Secretary



Dear Mr Hunt

I write to you in your capacity as Shadow Culture Secretary with a request for clarification of Conservative policy with regard to the regulation of football and, specifically, with regard to the proposals recently outlined by the UEFA President, Michel Platini.

As you are no doubt aware, the issue of prudent governance in football has recently been thrown into sharp relief by the travails of Portsmouth FC, though this is hardly the first club to face such problems, and the increasingly clear difficulties of Manchester United FC. It is, of course, the loyal supporters of each club who suffer most and, by extension, the local community.

It is a sign of the times in which we live that supporters of their local clubs have become customers of 'the matchday experience' but the corporate terminology should not be allowed to mask the fact that football clubs are not typical businesses. The globalisation of football is a fact, but clubs - even the largest - are still anchored in their local communities and represent an element of local culture and tradition which transcends mere businesses and which forms a community asset and value - a common good as well as a private business. In this context, it is my belief that M. Platini's proposals are not merely worthy of support but in fact represent potentially the last opportunity to pull the sport back from the dangerous direction in which it is, with increasing speed, heading.

The proposals themselves - a cap on spending set as a proportion of revenue for each club, a ban on the international transfer of players under the age of eighteen and an obligation for clubs to balance their books - while eminently sensible, require strong support as a change in European law will be required, likely in the form of an exemption from certain elements of European labour law for football clubs. Therefore it is imperative that those with the broader interests of our national game at heart should throw their weight behind M. Platini's proposals. I trust that the Conservative Party has these interests at heart and has the wisdom to recognise the need for both action and leadership.

I would be grateful if you could outline for me the Conservative Party's position in this matter and any steps a future Conservative government proposes to take at the national or European level.


Sincerely,

**********

i'll post the replies as and when.

There are really 2 aspects to this one negative one positive;

1. Giving Sport exemption from certain aspects of the Euroepan market around particularly player movement in order to protect the national dimension. This does happen to a limited extent with the sale of TV rights.

2. Recognsing the special case that sport has and requiring certain positive effects eg Broadcasting of matches (our crown jewels) and Governance. This latetr point is crucial and could include restrictions of borrowing and the requirement to have supporter representation on the Board. If you wanted to go the whole hog ownership could be vested in a trust and not quoted publicly.

In the past UEFA and the Commission/Parliament were at loggerheads and Bosman was in part a reaction to this. What we need is to have an alliance between UEFA and the EU against the rogue club owners. They need to be isolated and any threatened secession would be toothless.

good work borsuk but chances are he won't know who Manchester United FC are.

this is starting to resemble that scene in the life of brian where judith storms the meeting of the JPF to tell them they are crucifying brian .

Originally Posted by believe

good work borsuk but chances are he won't know who Manchester United FC are.

i'll include a link to the real girls thread.



the aim is to get a response from each of the three parties. it will almost certainly be noncommittal, waiting on details etc, or it will be hostile, spouting blather about the free market, saying existing regulation is adequate and suggesting that change is impossible for one reason or another. i'll be amazed if any of them come out officially in favour of platini's proposals.

once we have responses (i.e. we get them to take some kind of position) we can start trying to get them changed. the simplest way to go forward would be to set up a petition, not because it is a particularly effective technique but because we will need to involve fans from across the league(s) and therefore some kind of clear position is necessary, rather than the vague 'do something' that is enough on one forum with, broadly, one like-minded community.

once a position is formulated it's a case of drumming up support - i.e. publicising the petition on assorted fan forums, gathering signatures, using protest to keep the issue in the public eye and, once enough support is established, using the media and other channels to pressure whatever government there is at the time to act.

Originally Posted by Child of Darkness

this is starting to resemble that scene in the life of brian where judith storms the meeting of the JPF to tell them they are crucifying brian .

cod, you haven't actually answered your own question at any point. what are YOU going to do about it?

If you think there's no point writing to your MP, you'd be wrong, as there are quite a few who are on the safe standing campaign and who back Supporters Direct. My MP wrote back to me immediately about safe standing once saying he backs it 100%.

Originally Posted by borsuk

cod, you haven't actually answered your own question at any point. what are YOU going to do about it?

this calls for immeadiate discussion

right sta er lorretta write this down ...

Fair play. Pretty flipping obvious the government bodies should be involved. Absolutely pointless I'm afraid, to expect gloryhunters to stop buying matchday tickets and shirts.
And it is a government issue, regardless of whatever anyone says. These matters should be closely regulated.

It's obviously £#%&!ing ludicrous that they could have done this by borrowing that amount of money. It isn't anyone else's fault or in anyone else's control other than the people who write regulations.