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

"match-going reds are the only ones with a valid opinion" argument. nice one.

it's certainly amazing how seldom the boycotters go to games, I'll give you that.

what was that fella called in the matrix who's biting into a big juicy steak even though he knows it's not real and yet still gets satisfaction out of it?


"ignorance is bliss"



indeed.



to answer the question of the thread, look to that. unfortunately the rest of the thread has been taken up by petty oneupmanship as it so often does with regards to FCUM/MUFC, born out of a petty hatred/jealousy/bitterness of 'the other side'.

it's absolutely pathetic and it's a good job you only tend to see such narrow-mindedness on an internet forum and not real life.


oh, wait...

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

wow. my opinion has been picked off bit by bit

once you realise how seldom people go the game, then you realise how utterly irrelevant their opinions are.......
...

I take this back. Not that it isn't true, I mean, you can't boycott something you hardly ever did really, can you. Anyway, I was a bit edgy. Got propositioned last night by a bird I've been mates with for years and it was just plain wrong

Originally Posted by jem's kind streak

"match-going reds are the only ones with a valid opinion" argument. nice one.

it's certainly amazing how seldom the boycotters go to games, I'll give you that.

Unless you can admit that the main reason the vast majority never boycotted was plain and simple because they didn't want to, then you'll never come to terms with this topic. And wow do you need to come to terms with this topic.

People didn't want to boycott. They weren't ignorant - they had all the facts available to them that the boycotters had. They weren't stupid - though I can't speak for all of them, obviously. They didn't want to boycott - they didn't want to boycott! There was no reason produced by anyone at all that even nearly convinced the vast majority that a boycott was appropriate, justified or required.

There may be all manner of plans, schemes, speculation, rumour and scenarios highlighting impending doom. But the vast majority remain utterly unconvinced.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing some of United's brilliant youth players making the breakthrough into the first team over the next couple of seasons.

And I can't wait for Tuesday night. It should be a cracker, win, lose or draw.

Some of the most high profile, more vocal boycotters never went anyway, Some had banning orders and couldnt attend, some never even had season tickets or memberships, done 2 big games a season.

Some have used the boycott to hide behind to save face, as they couldnt no longer afford to go and its easier to tell their mates they are boycotting than they cant afford it. Some have recently had kids and cant afford it, so hide behind the boycott.

FC Utd was muted for years, the Glazer takeover gave them the perfect opportunity to form, the prefect way to attract fans and funds, giving the organisers soemthing they had desired for several years. Some of them got that carried away with living their FC utd dream, they forgot all about the boycott/glazer protests etc. many who took the FC path have now seen what its turly about and have stopped going.

Do you honestly think they will return when Glazer goes? No, they will simply have gripes with any new owners.
If they do return, certain groups will make life difficult for them or say they arent welcome back.

The visible boycotters are now the same as greenpeace activists etc, they make a small visible presence, sticking banners and stickers up, but its a tiny voice and people now walk on past taking no notice.

I wonder how many boycotters will want to go to Wembley or Athens should we get there? Which leads to the question, should a boycoter be given a match ticket by someone who still puts their money into the club or does the principle of boycotting not matter if someone else pays the money and not them?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Unless you can admit that the main reason the vast majority never boycotted was plain and simple because they didn't want to, then you'll never come to terms with this topic. And wow do you need to come to terms with this topic.

I cannot admit that because I feel many people wanted to do something but didn't know what to do. I find it too hard to believe that most people simply didn't care about £650mio of debt. I would find it easier to believe that a lot of people didn't realise the debt would be the club's debt or were generally confused. so, frustration and confusion. not "just didn't want to do anything about it". and, of course, amongst those people who didn't want to boycott, plenty really just didn't want to lose their season tickets for nothing.

if there really were that many people who just didn't want to.... whose attitude was "I'm just going to watch the football like I've always done because I support my team", then there were really were that many selfish, unthinking £#%&!wits. sorry if you don't like that.

Originally Posted by jem's kind streak

I cannot admit that because I feel many people wanted to do something but didn't know what to do. I find it too hard to believe that most people simply didn't care about £650mio of debt. I would find it easier to believe that a lot of people didn't realise the debt would be the club's debt or were generally confused. so, frustration and confusion. not "just didn't want to do anything about it". and, of course, amongst those people who didn't want to boycott, plenty really just didn't want to lose their season tickets for nothing.

if there really were that many people who just didn't want to.... whose attitude was "I'm just going to watch the football like I've always done because I support my team", then there were really were that many selfish, unthinking £#%&!wits. sorry if you don't like that.

Neither like it or dislike it. I'm completely indifferent to it. Politics schmolitics. I'd rather play football.


In 76 good post that. Especially the bit about the boycott being used by some part-timers and non-match-goers as a mask of credibility.

And the bit about the breakaway club is very true as well. It had been mooted for some years. Fair play to those who've stopped going for the cost of it as far as I'm concerned. But other than that, the whole thing has largely become a self-parodying soap opera.

Originally Posted by jem's kind streak

prehaps if you read the comment about selfish, unthinking £#%&!wits in context, you might have understood it better. anyone who was against glazer in principle, knew we'd get lumbered with the debt (with all the medium-term risk that entails), realised there was something that we could do about and still decided he just didn't want to do anything, is, however, a selfish unthinking £#%&!wit.

this is nowt more than I'm right you're wrong yet again, jem. tedious.

you underestimate people as a matter of course on this subject.

you seem to think that all you need to do is throw all the figures around and it'll do as proof that we would have boycotted on mass if only we'd all been made to understand what they meant.

you forget though that we all live with this type of shit in our everyday lives, not least from the banks we use. people are not scared of debt. our society and economy is based around it.

the focus of energy at the announcement of the imminent takeover should have been on establishing an ongoing dialogue between them and us - innocent until proven guilty, if you like. I'm not fond of the way they are, as I see it, ripping off the British tax system to own United. but spare me the lecture on the debts please. it's not exactly uncommon for rich businessmen and the banking industry to act like such devious, greedy, selfish arrogant @#%&!s, is it now.

It's true that the light of reason and understanding on issues like this moves like a flea through treacle.

There are a lot more "rights" on both sides of this discussion if only people could see them. Meanwhile there still is something worth boycotting for (and before you say anything - *in my opinion*) and I see no reason why I and others cannot argue the case. And that's the point - it has to be done with reason and honesty, not just gainsaying. This goes for the counter argument too.

I know this might sound controversial... we're all United fans innit.

No one knew what the £#%&! was going on.

The ones that did looked down on the ones who didn't and deemed them unworthy.

(mis)information on forums like RI only clouded the issue further.

No one still knows what the £#%&! is going on.

They'll say they will, but they £#%&!ing don't.

Originally Posted by jem

so what you're saying is, people are stupid? ok, that could be the answer. I'd buy that.

er, yeah. a few people putting up umbrellas is pointless. everyone boycotting certainly wouldn't have been.

that doesn't explain why people didn't boycott.

now who's scaremongering? the mere credible threat of a boycott would have seen off glazer.

I'm not sure I blame apathy at all. it was more like resignation and frustration (caused by poor leadership.... I know.... I blame myself for not being on the ball).

people aren't prepared to boycott unless they think it will achieve something.

you're back to the vast majority are stupid again? ok. our youth squad? are you for real?

ah. now hold on.... we have a sensible caller.

it's as if you are actually trying to be a tiresome £#%&!wit (in which case, job well done, take a biscuit). maybe, just maybe, the broad support was against glazer, but maybe they felt powerless. maybe they felt they didn't have any choice but to wait and see.

you and your matchgoing reds. shyeah, there's no such thing as a match-going doomlord.

just out of interest, what do you think would be the result of a boycott leading to bankruptcy? I wonder if anyone could be persuaded to take united over. as a going concern. of course, it might prove hard to convince a real businessman that there was any kind of money to be made out football.


personally, my complete stab in the dark would be that a piecemeal boycott, hoping to snowball, was never ever going to work. people could see that if they gave up their season tickets, all that would happen is that some other schmuck would buy it, few others would bother boycotting and the net result would be glazer getting just as much money as he would have done, except that particular fan would be missing the games and never get his season ticket back. people simply thought "why should I shoot myself in the foot when no one else can be arsed?" I believe that if people had thought there would be a mass boycott - big enough to make a difference - they would have happily joined it. that they didn't and that people felt they had no way properly to express their anger or take action that would actually have any effect other than briefly drawing attention to themselves and annoying a few people is just down to ignorance, a lack of imagination and a lack of leadership (with those who might have guided people too busy suggesting people could actually buy enough shares to make a defensive stake big enough to prevent the takeover, which was a £#%&!ing joke).

most people (I'm guessing, of course, I didn't shake hands with each of them at the game) just saw some massive unstoppable financial business thing that they didn't really understand and couldn't believe they could stand up to. most people didn't appreciate the debilitating effect of taking the most profitable sports franchise in the world and lumbering it with an unsustainable level of debt (or thought the glazers must have some great secret plan) - some complete £#%&!wits still don't, of course (the piano has not landed on my head yet, so I will not step out from under this looming shadow... why are people shouting at me and waving their arms?). most people thought that price rises were inevitable. most people didn't realise that we, as consumers, hold the ultimate power and could change the £#%&!ing world.

most people also seem happy to accept or ignore genocide, destitution, human trafficking, prejudice, mismanagement of the transport system, the unrepresentative nature of government, fat people and dull clothes. most people can't see past the end of their £#%&!ing noses. most people live in a little bubble of wilful ignorance, stupidity, apathy, irresponsibility and cynicism.

most people on this thread would £#%&!ing burst into tears if they got neg repped.

Brilliant post

Originally Posted by Panic

Brilliant post

How can it be a brilliant post?

It misrepresents what I said on this very thread.

The fact people didn't follow the minority, and were not sufficiently swayed by their version of events, past present or future, does not mean they are stupid.

Perhaps the monority would have gained more support had they not had this attitude of evangelising?

Then again, the majority didn't want to boycott, so I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

How can it be a brilliant post?

It misrepresents what I said on this very thread.

The fact people didn't follow the minority, and were not sufficiently swayed by their version of events, past present or future, does not mean they are stupid.

Perhaps the monority would have gained more support had they not had this attitude of evangelising?

Then again, the majority didn't want to boycott, so I doubt it.

He's a new member. More than anything, I'm guessing he was wowed by Jem's command of the english language.

The statement in bold rings true for me.

i've not been to old trafford since the take over, but i was never a ST holder, so boycotting for me presumably was easier than someone who didn't want to lose that ticket forever, and i do understand that

i remember going to protests at old trafford and round town and stuff, what was the average numbers at these protests? 2,000? 3,000 max? as a percentage of our support its miniscule really, too many people just not bothered, either through not understanding, or not caring who knows?

the whole FC thing had been mooted for years. before i go on about FC, I, personally have nothing against them really. I've been to one game, last season, and i enjoyed it, but its not for me. i have mates who go, and i have mates who boycott, and i have mates who actually bought a season ticket in 2005 after glazer had took over! he knew we were in debt, but didn't give a shit. couldn't be reasoned with that guy, and he's not stupid. he just didn't care about that side of things. But back to FC, just after they were formed i was talking to a mate of my brothers about it, I remember him telling me he wasn't interested in FC, citing reasons that the people who were forming the club, just wanted it to happen, and were using the takeover/boycott/glazer issue in general as a catalyst to get it off the ground. i didn't really think much of it at the time, but maybe its true, i don't know, and like i say i'm not slagging FC or the people who set up the club. just funny how someone in a thread above mentioned it

my own personal feelings at the moment, i've only been to one game all season. sheffield united away. i miss going to old trafford so much, fair play i was never an ST holder, but i went to a large majority of games and got behind my team, vocally whenever I did. still boycotting seems pointless to be honest, its obviously not going to make glazer £#%&! off, but i'm sticking to my guns now. whoever it was who made the point about people maybe using the boycott as an excuse to hide the fact they couldn't afford it, personally i think that is bang on. maybe i spend more than i used to, but if i was going to the games, i'd be brasic! or i'd be doing myself out of a few nights with me g/f in the month, or going to new york, or whatever. i don't actually agree with how the wages have gone, its just too much for me. so i suppose i'm boycotting for the reason of Glazer, but the fact i don't have to fund overpaid professionals each week does give me another reason not go

100k a week, its just daft, in fact its not daft, its a £#%&!ing joke. think about how much money that is, thats five times what i earn a year. and he gets it a WEEK. crazy. and yes i know alot of people, other than players, make a lot of money from football, and they're already doing so. they don't need mine too

why should i not have a nice holiday? and instead of saving up 150 quid a month spending money, i spend that on united. and it goes into the pockets of someone like Rooney who can afford to go to new york at the drop of a hat for five days and get courtside seats at the basketball. why the £#%&! should i do myself out of anything for them? and i'm not having a go at roon, i £#%&!ing love the scouse @#%&!! but its just got to a point now where someone like Richardson has a bentley....i mean ffs a bentley. somehow i knew i'd get a dig at that little £#%&! nut

but the real reason i'm not going is Glazer, but for me it was a convenient to stop going, i could use it as an excuse. cos if my excuse was, i can't be arsed its too expensive, i've been labelled a nob head red probably, an armchair fan whatever.

there was no real leadership unfortunately from anyone, there just appeared to be divisions in our support of how to take things forward, and what course of action to take, some willing to go further than others, i remember at the methodist hall people squabbling, i remember thinking, £#%&! me man, aren't we supposed to be on the same side? and we had our wrists band, and people put money in, and there was this fund, that fund, IMUSA, SU, RI, MEC, MFI, DHL!? it seemed the list was endless of organisations to be involved with, if it was one organisation, all of us together, maybe it would have got the ground more who knows

right, what was the question again....??!

sorry that was just a bit of a random rant

Originally Posted by jem

eh, bigmouthj, surely? it's the only explanation. um... even though you're right.

bigmouthj? explain!

no matter what you do to me, rep hound, I still come out looking handsome. obviously, I appreciate the quality of your work, but I feel the fact that I have given you some good basic material has helped. in a fair world, you would accept that most of your rep should be mine. :0)

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

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 jem

so what you're saying is, people are stupid? ok, that could be the answer. I'd buy that.

Originally Posted by jem's kind streak

I cannot admit that [people largely just didn't want to boycott] because I feel many people wanted to do something but didn't know what to do. [If there were that many who just didn't went to then it shows how much of our support are] selfish, unthinking £#%&!wits. sorry if you don't like that.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Neither like it or dislike it. I'm completely indifferent to it. Politics schmolitics. I'd rather play football.
Fair play to those who've stopped going for the cost of it as far as I'm concerned. But other than that, the whole thing has largely become a self-parodying soap opera.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb;242327[I

(In response to more number crunching and repeat of £#%&!wittery claims[/i]!: this is nowt more than I'm right you're wrong yet again, jem. tedious.

you underestimate people as a matter of course on this subject.

you seem to think that all you need to do is throw all the figures around and it'll do as proof that we would have boycotted on mass if only we'd all been made to understand what they meant.

I'm not fond of the way they are, as I see it, ripping off the British tax system to own United. but spare me the lecture on the debts please. it's not exactly uncommon for rich businessmen and the banking industry to act like such devious, greedy, selfish arrogant @#%&!s, is it now.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Perhaps the monority would have gained more support had they not had this attitude of evangelising?

Originally Posted by jem

the glazers refused any dialogue and never explained what they were up to. and still haven't. in this case, guilty until proven innocent. £#%&! me, this is our football club we're talking about. they should have to prove they have good intentions. This I agree with; our money and our tax system are being used by them for them to own United and they would be wise to convey their good intentions backed up with believable reassurances. But this is the world of business and money - the obsession of man, and thus they are ridiculously protected from having to show their hand, can hide their money in safe places and basically they just don't have to tell us; the main reason they might be wise to do so is, assuming all is going to plan (innocent until proven guilty still dominates my free-thinking on that score I'm afraid), would be to knock all the best guess financial projections of doom on the head. These in themselves though are far from a problem I would imagine. They have done more to pacify our support than rally it against them since they are so obviously one-sided. Now if there were similar projections made that demonstrated how everything could work out fine, and then some probability was demonstrated across the range of each scenario, perhaps that would have had/might have more effect were they still to point towards doom. Of course, such projections are virtually impossible to calculate, therefore the financial arguments turn a few heads but nowhere near enough. You say this is because people don't understand them or are too stupid. I say it is because they don't stack up. You would no doubt argue that that's the £#%&!in point! And I'd argue that you need to show it from more scenarios than just your favoured one. You would say you're right I'm wrong and away we go again.

gosh. this wouldn't be a case of someone disagreeing with you and you suggesting that person must be some kind of idiotic £#%&!wit? It is you who is underestimating people as a matter of course, not me.

It is so much easier to be negative about things than to be positive, generally speaking. But, often as not, the imagination required is roughly the same in each case.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

It is so much easier to be negative about things than to be positive, generally speaking. But, often as not, the imagination required is roughly the same in each case.

excuse me, but I have been just as realistic (or imaginative, as you might say) about the positives. there is plenty of opportunity to increase profits at united (far more than the glazers have done) and allow the club to survive... hell, maybe even prosper. I wouldn't have any problem with renaming the stadium, for example. at least, I would have far less problem with that than I have with the huge chiunk of debt it would repay.

there are two problems I have, though. (a) whilst there is a happy outcome as well as a sad one, the fact is that there is a risk that united will bump along and not be anywhere near as successful (at best) - and it is a risk that the glazers took on our behalf, a risk that need not have been taken, and (b) however successfully they manage united, they could have made all of the same positive contributions without lumbering united with all of the debt. in short, we have a downside that was never there and we have reduced whatever upside there is by more than the value of any other club in the world. what sane person would like that?

what have we got in exchange for the debt? absolutely £#%&! all. it's not a question of wait and see. or they did it legally. it is very simply a question of there being debt that we did not need, from which we do not benefit in any way and because of which it has become a matter of some urgency that these @#%&!s screw as much money out of the club as possible. and that, ultimately, means out of you and me. mostly you, as it happens. :0)

As I said, it's a lot easier to be negative than to be positive.

Well done for trying though ;-)

it's easier. :0)

Is there an echo in here?
































[SIZE="1"]
the word is last