Premier League 2020/21 Thread

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Devil's advocate here.

 

Was there no 'middle ground' between the two?
 

I think an impactful and excellent protest got absolutely ruined and will be rightly condemned due to the actions of a few.

 

I just wonder if perhaps they pushed a little too far and it may actually harm their cause.

 

Also until they ALL stop spending money, the Glazers could not care less. The only way to hit matchday revenue also is for them all to keep their season tickets and not spend a penny in the ground (or just don't go). If they give up their ST; the Glazers will convert more of it to hospitality/tourist football and make more matchday revenue. 

 

I’m sure it could have been done better and less destructive and still carried similar attention but given the circumstances, I can’t and won’t condone it.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, The People's Hero said:

Yes; so we agree. 

 

Do what is necessary to make the point; and if possible in a legal and even constructive way but we acknowledge that protesting naturally needs to be disruptive and damaging. Preventing the coaches moving and all the rest of it seemed to have been working.

 

Not sure that slashing a policeman's face makes their point any more valid (in fact I know it doesn't) and I'd question whether it gets you the sort of attention for your cause that you actually want (it doesn't) and the point would have been more strongly made if there was a minimum amount of violence involved. 

 

By throwing beer cans, causing criminal damage and throwing flares at people; they gave the sky cameras (which gave them a captive audience) a very simple opportunity on a plate to spin the narrative against the protesters.

 

One key to any crusade like this is to manage the narrative; sadly they've shot themselves in the foot big-time since they've given any MSM a negative-hook to hang their story on. Huge mis-step.

For sure - I was trying to avoid the specific actions of specific people, because that is exactly what people who want to take no notice do. It is a sad fact that some people are just morons who want to smash stuff up regardless (the time-honoured dismantlement of bus stops being a good example), and I in no way condone any of that. I think you understand my point, though - speak to 'authority' quietly and reasonably, they just say 'yes dear', shout and they say 'no need to shout, go to your bedroom'.

[Strokes]

23 minutes ago, Angus Scott said:

What an absolute load of rubbish. The vast majority of people in this country are appalled by the actions you describe & thankfully such anarchy does not achieve change.

The protest at Old Trafford was completely ruined by idiots getting in the ground & causing mindless vandalism. This means the vast majority of people will view this as football "hooliganism" & disregard it. Thousands protesting peacefully outside the ground, as was the intention, would have had much more affect

Well I completely disagree, they’ve tried that approach several times in the last 17 years and it’s gone nowhere.

[The People's Hero]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

For sure - I was trying to avoid the specific actions of specific people, because that is exactly what people who want to take no notice do. It is a sad fact that some people are just morons who want to smash stuff up regardless (the time-honoured dismantlement of bus stops being a good example), and I in no way condone any of that. I think you understand my point, though - speak to 'authority' quietly and reasonably, they just say 'yes dear', shout and they say 'no need to shout, go to your bedroom'.

I understand that. In fairness; I'm not sure we are really giving this issue or those actions exposure or a 'platform' since they are EVERYWHERE. The correct response and I believe the prevailing one is to :

 

- acknowledge the frustrations with the Glazers

- admiring the will to protest and make themselves heard (over 10,000 protested!)

- condoning the right to protest and the spirit in which many conducted themselves

- condemning the actions of the 'few' who have marred it all with violence and handed control of the narrative to the MSM; including MSM outlets which due to their position and completely obliged to report on and condemn the actions of those few. Opportunity missed.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I understand that. In fairness; I'm not sure we are really giving this issue or those actions exposure or a 'platform' since they are EVERYWHERE. The correct response and I believe the prevailing one is to :

 

- acknowledge the frustrations with the Glazers

- admiring the will to protest and make themselves heard (over 10,000 protested!)

- condoning the right to protest and the spirit in which many conducted themselves

- condemning the actions of the 'few' who have marred it all with violence and handed control of the narrative to the MSM; including MSM outlets which due to their position and completely obliged to report on and condemn the actions of those few. Opportunity missed.

How much have we talked about Manchester United fans peaceful protests over the last 17 years? Their are fans that begrudgingly refuse to wear the clubs colours, sing anti Glazers songs, set up and support another club (fc United) regularly negative signage. Some on here didn’t even know it went on (I know baffling) but now it’s the top topic. Whether we like and agree with it or not, extreme measures and protest shine a light on things and football has been out of control for decades.

For me, they are doing what needs to be done to get the job done and that will be for (hopefully) the betterment of Manchester United and football in general. 

[sheffield_fox]

I don't like the actions of those small number of man u fans fighting with the police. The fans throwing bottles are idiots and you often see a couple in a football crowd. 

 

However, the group as whole did brilliantly. Change is rarely won by asking nicely. They took a stand and made their voices heard. Anyone criticising them for walking on the pitch needs to have a word with themselves. It's some grass.

 

I'm glad they reminded the arrogant owners that hundreds of thousands of fans have plenty of power to affect the club. The genie is out of the bottle now and the Super league club owners may yet end up regretting taking their clubs fans for granted. 

 

 

[ozleicester]

This protest has been covered extensively in Oz news, all channels.

No previous Man Utd protests have been mentioned.

[The People's Hero]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

How much have we talked about Manchester United fans peaceful protests over the last 17 years? Their are fans that begrudgingly refuse to wear the clubs colours, sing anti Glazers songs, set up and support another club (fc United) regularly negative signage. Some on here didn’t even know it went on (I know baffling) but now it’s the top topic. Whether we like and agree with it or not, extreme measures and protest shine a light on things and football has been out of control for decades.

For me, they are doing what needs to be done to get the job done and that will be for (hopefully) the betterment of Manchester United and football in general. 

I agree all of that; my only point in addition is that the small percentage that wanted to bring violence, intimidation and criminal activity along with it meant that some powerful mouthpieces in the MSM who probably would have had sympathy and supported are now in a position where they can not; or they have to endorse the action but with a long list of caveats, which does dilute the message. An example would be the BBC; who are state endorsed (I believe) and tax-payer funded; but very conservative in terms of 'legal' issues.

 

This protest was never going to actually upset the Glazers really (possibly not even aware it was 'matchday' 'over the pond' ) so this needed to win the support of the football community at large and perhaps the governing bodies / our actual government (50+1 appeals to MUFC understandably); so the fact that it was ruined by stupidity from a few is likely to limit the impact it has in my opinion since the powers they want to win support and favour with simply cannot condone or support these actions; sometimes by virtue of their own governance, paymasters or position.

 

I've probably still not made that very clear; but I have a hangover, so it might be about the best I can do!

Edited 3 May 2021 by The People's Hero
Evidently I cannot type very well.

[davieG]

BBC - Manchester United protests: Emotions have been simmering for 16 years

 

It was at an entrance round the back of the Stretford End, away from the noise and the flares that accompanied the start of the Manchester United fans' protest at Old Trafford, that those who made it on to the pitch gained access.

Most were young lads in their 20s, coming down the hill in wave after wave. But not all.

There were women and older men too. One, probably in his late 50s or early 60s, wore a green and gold scarf and woolly hat - the colours of United's first shirts when they were formed as Newton Heath in 1878, and of the original anti-Glazer protests in 2010

Man Utd v Liverpool off after fan protest

Football Daily podcast: All about the Man Utd protest

After he had left the stadium compound, he remained with those waiting for the United team bus that never arrived.

He was not angry and spoke calmly to fans and media in the same area, wanting to know the latest about what was happening on the other side of the ground, or around the team hotel, where he had been earlier.

Those fans, he felt, were more sinister than the ones at the stadium. But he didn't condemn them. He accepts they have a common goal. Emotions have been simmering for 16 years, so a bit of aggression is understandable, the theory went.

Exchanges like this - and people like that - underline the reason for what happened at Old Trafford.

A large protest was expected outside the ground before the match with historic rivals Liverpool - but no-one expected fans to force their way into the stadium and on to the pitch and for the match to be postponed.

 

 

 

It was the third major fans protest against the club and its owners in recent days following a protest at Old Trafford last Saturday and fans entering the club's training ground at Carrington the previous Thursday.

Like supporters of the other five 'big six' clubs, Manchester United's fans are angry about the European Super League proposals. They don't want it and will voice their opposition - just as fans of the other five English sides have done.

What sets United apart is that their fans are not surprised at the actions of their owners - the US-based Glazer family.

Indeed, to those fans, it merely underlines their view that the owners of their football club only care about money and that they have no affection for the world-famous 149-year-old institution they are in charge of.

If they did, the argument goes, they would never have landed the club with the enormous debt associated with their controversial £790m leveraged takeover in 2005.

Manchester United were a debt-free organisation when they were on the stock market prior to the Glazers buying the club. The fans believe the Glazers should have used their own money.

That debt currently stands at £455.5m, according to the club's latest accounts, which were released on 4 March, 2021. It is estimated that in general finance costs, interest and dividends, the Glazer takeover has cost United in excess of £1bn.

There is nothing new in this. Many United fans were genuinely angry when Sir Alex Ferguson used to defend the owners. The Scot repeatedly said the Glazer family backed him in the transfer market and never offered criticism.

Those fans felt Ferguson's brilliance as a manager masked underlying issues around the money being invested in United's playing squad.

It is no surprise the 'green and gold' anti-Glazer campaign began in 2010, when United were experiencing a dip after three successive Premier League titles, nor that it fizzled out when Ferguson got his team playing like champions again and reached another Champions League final.

But for some, the sentiment never dimmed. Disenchantment with the Glazer stewardship of United has grown with every passing year since Ferguson retired in 2013, not just because the club's fortunes have slipped, but because despite the relative failure, tens of millions of pounds go out of the club, either directly to the family or because of the way they run United.

There is a counter-balance to this narrative.

The owners are responsible for the phenomenal rise in Manchester United's commercial revenue. They were the ones who aggressively pursued the regional approach, which every other similar sized club has followed.

The Glazers introduced a commercial plan which was different to any other club. Other than the major deals with Adidas, Chevrolet and others, they sell on a regional basis across the globe, so they have telecoms partners in USA and Canada, another in Africa, another in China. They recognised United were popular and maximised the popularity.

It can be argued, with some justification, that the Glazers are responsible for a significant proportion of United's rise in income and what they take out is only a percentage of it.

United sources never tire of drilling home the message that the money the club raises is done to improve the playing side, whether it be through big-money signings or academy prospects.

Beyond question, they have spent a lot of money on players. Whether they have bought the right ones is debatable though, and the Glazers are blamed by some for not putting the processes in place to get the recruitment right.

In recent times, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, a patron of the Manchester United Supporters Trust (Must), which has campaigned against the family, has, like Ferguson, been condemned for not criticising the owners.

Yet Solskjaer, when I asked him about the planned protests in the build-up to Sunday's game, said the fans' voice "needs to be heard".

That probably explains the wording of the club statement on Sunday night, which in addition to condemning those who put "other fans, staff and police in danger", also acknowledged their right to free expression and peaceful protest, in addition to highlighting their passion.

In the aftermath of the ESL's collapse, co-chairman Joel Glazer said he accepted there was a need for greater communication with supporters.

That said, he opted not to join an emergency fans forum on Friday when Must were amongst the signatories of a letter, read out to executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward, stating the fans did not trust or believe the owners.

It is doubtful whether bridges between the two sides can ever be built but even securing some sort of peace, however uneasy, may not be easy to achieve.

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

 

A precedent has been set, BLM protesters smashed up cities, tore down statues and fought with police. The country listened, football listened and now mark each game by taking a knee.

It appears to be the only way to achieve change.

This was always the case. Protest peacefully and you'll be ignored unfortunately.

 

As we move into an era where our rights are being removed and protesting is being criminalised you'll find more people being more destructive and aggressive. 

[The People's Hero]

1 minute ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

This was always the case. Protest peacefully and you'll be ignored unfortunately.

 

As we move into an era where our rights are being removed and protesting is being criminalised you'll find more people being more destructive and aggressive. 

Eh up Greb. How's things over in Grebland, mate? Did you have to leave the EU when we did? 

[Strokes]

Guys and girls, they won’t just give football back to us, we have to take it. By any means necessary.

I know things are Rosy at Leicester right now but imagine this is a time when we were on the brink of financial ruin and these owners tried to steal the cherry and ruin the cake.

We would be arm in arm with these fans. Our current standing has no relevance in a corrupt greedy world where meritocracy is at threat. 
We are fortunate at Leicester, many of the other 91 clubs aren’t and their owners would and will sell them to highest bidder without a seconds thought towards the club, fans or its future.

All we have to do, is not accept the narrative portrayed by Sky and other media, that this is wrong and support fans trying to be heard.

Drop your colours, drop your rivalries and support fans having a say in the running of our clubs and football in general.

These twats have committed corporate anarchy for years, **** them.

[davieG]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

BBC - Manchester United protests: Emotions have been simmering for 16 years

 

It was at an entrance round the back of the Stretford End, away from the noise and the flares that accompanied the start of the Manchester United fans' protest at Old Trafford, that those who made it on to the pitch gained access.

Most were young lads in their 20s, coming down the hill in wave after wave. But not all.

There were women and older men too. One, probably in his late 50s or early 60s, wore a green and gold scarf and woolly hat - the colours of United's first shirts when they were formed as Newton Heath in 1878, and of the original anti-Glazer protests in 2010

Man Utd v Liverpool off after fan protest

Football Daily podcast: All about the Man Utd protest

After he had left the stadium compound, he remained with those waiting for the United team bus that never arrived.

He was not angry and spoke calmly to fans and media in the same area, wanting to know the latest about what was happening on the other side of the ground, or around the team hotel, where he had been earlier.

Those fans, he felt, were more sinister than the ones at the stadium. But he didn't condemn them. He accepts they have a common goal. Emotions have been simmering for 16 years, so a bit of aggression is understandable, the theory went.

Exchanges like this - and people like that - underline the reason for what happened at Old Trafford.

A large protest was expected outside the ground before the match with historic rivals Liverpool - but no-one expected fans to force their way into the stadium and on to the pitch and for the match to be postponed.

 

 

 

It was the third major fans protest against the club and its owners in recent days following a protest at Old Trafford last Saturday and fans entering the club's training ground at Carrington the previous Thursday.

Like supporters of the other five 'big six' clubs, Manchester United's fans are angry about the European Super League proposals. They don't want it and will voice their opposition - just as fans of the other five English sides have done.

What sets United apart is that their fans are not surprised at the actions of their owners - the US-based Glazer family.

Indeed, to those fans, it merely underlines their view that the owners of their football club only care about money and that they have no affection for the world-famous 149-year-old institution they are in charge of.

If they did, the argument goes, they would never have landed the club with the enormous debt associated with their controversial £790m leveraged takeover in 2005.

Manchester United were a debt-free organisation when they were on the stock market prior to the Glazers buying the club. The fans believe the Glazers should have used their own money.

That debt currently stands at £455.5m, according to the club's latest accounts, which were released on 4 March, 2021. It is estimated that in general finance costs, interest and dividends, the Glazer takeover has cost United in excess of £1bn.

There is nothing new in this. Many United fans were genuinely angry when Sir Alex Ferguson used to defend the owners. The Scot repeatedly said the Glazer family backed him in the transfer market and never offered criticism.

Those fans felt Ferguson's brilliance as a manager masked underlying issues around the money being invested in United's playing squad.

It is no surprise the 'green and gold' anti-Glazer campaign began in 2010, when United were experiencing a dip after three successive Premier League titles, nor that it fizzled out when Ferguson got his team playing like champions again and reached another Champions League final.

But for some, the sentiment never dimmed. Disenchantment with the Glazer stewardship of United has grown with every passing year since Ferguson retired in 2013, not just because the club's fortunes have slipped, but because despite the relative failure, tens of millions of pounds go out of the club, either directly to the family or because of the way they run United.

There is a counter-balance to this narrative.

The owners are responsible for the phenomenal rise in Manchester United's commercial revenue. They were the ones who aggressively pursued the regional approach, which every other similar sized club has followed.

The Glazers introduced a commercial plan which was different to any other club. Other than the major deals with Adidas, Chevrolet and others, they sell on a regional basis across the globe, so they have telecoms partners in USA and Canada, another in Africa, another in China. They recognised United were popular and maximised the popularity.

It can be argued, with some justification, that the Glazers are responsible for a significant proportion of United's rise in income and what they take out is only a percentage of it.

United sources never tire of drilling home the message that the money the club raises is done to improve the playing side, whether it be through big-money signings or academy prospects.

Beyond question, they have spent a lot of money on players. Whether they have bought the right ones is debatable though, and the Glazers are blamed by some for not putting the processes in place to get the recruitment right.

In recent times, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, a patron of the Manchester United Supporters Trust (Must), which has campaigned against the family, has, like Ferguson, been condemned for not criticising the owners.

Yet Solskjaer, when I asked him about the planned protests in the build-up to Sunday's game, said the fans' voice "needs to be heard".

That probably explains the wording of the club statement on Sunday night, which in addition to condemning those who put "other fans, staff and police in danger", also acknowledged their right to free expression and peaceful protest, in addition to highlighting their passion.

In the aftermath of the ESL's collapse, co-chairman Joel Glazer said he accepted there was a need for greater communication with supporters.

That said, he opted not to join an emergency fans forum on Friday when Must were amongst the signatories of a letter, read out to executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward, stating the fans did not trust or believe the owners.

It is doubtful whether bridges between the two sides can ever be built but even securing some sort of peace, however uneasy, may not be easy to achieve.

For me there's too many different agendas especially between the SL6 and the 14, The SL6s main problem with their owners and this may be true of some of the 14 but I suspect the SL6 are quite happy to retain the lion's share of the PL revenues for them it seems it's a case of owners out but keep the £££s. I think that the 14 fans are more to do with a level playing field and a more equitable share of revenues.

 

There is some common ground re match schedules, pricing of tickets, safe standing, agents, meritocracy, refereeing standards and VAR maybe transfer fees and player wages but I fear these are losing out to the club ownership problems of the SL6 where all the media focus seems to be as they continue to track and listen to those SL6 clubs issues.

[Grebfromgrebland]

2 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Eh up Greb. How's things over in Grebland, mate? Did you have to leave the EU when we did? 

Aye yes unfortunately my corner of Leicester had to go with the flow on this one. Still a land of peace and love for now though. All welcome here.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

I agree all of that; my only point in addition is that the small percentage that wanted to bring violence, intimidation and criminal activity along with it meant that some powerful mouthpieces in the MSM who probably would have had sympathy and supported are now in a position where they can not; or they have to endorse the action but with a long list of caveats, which does dilute the message. An example would be the BBC; who are state endorsed (I believe) and tax-payer funded; but very conservative in terms of 'legal' issues.

 

This protest was never going to actually upset the Glazers really (possibly not even aware it was 'matchday' 'over the pond' ) so this needed to win the support of the football community at large and perhaps the governing bodies / our actual government (50+1 appeals to MUFC understandably); so the fact that it was ruined by stupidity from a few is likely to limit the impact it has in my opinion since the powers they want to win support and favour with simply cannot condone or support these actions; sometimes by virtue of their own governance, paymasters or position.

 

I've probably still not made that very clear; but I have a hangover, so it might be about the best I can do!

I do understand what you are saying and how it’s given MSM an opportunity to claim the narrative and therefore steer the opinions and support away from this. Honestly I do.

My point is that we don’t have to accept their narrative, we are free thinking adults (well most of us) and we can see beyond that.

[Buce]

2 hours ago, David Hankey said:

And breaking the law does?!!

 

54 minutes ago, Angus Scott said:

 thankfully such anarchy does not achieve change.

 

 

 

You're both old enough to remember the Poll Tax riots, a perfect example of what violent protest can achieve.

[The People's Hero]

Just now, Strokes said:

I do understand what you are saying and how it’s given MSM an opportunity to claim the narrative and therefore steer the opinions and support away from this. Honestly I do.

My point is that we don’t have to accept their narrative, we are free thinking adults (well most of us) and we can see beyond that.

Indeed; I don't honestly think its that important what the MSM say; unless they influence a lot of people away from what SHOULD be the prevailing narrative and the real story; since that sort of momentum puts pressure on local MPs and Govt itself and they can force change on this.

 

Any illegality and negativity as a result toward the 'cause' just muddies the waters and makes it easier for the Gov to ignore it, I think.

 

Change is coming; but it will be despite and not due to the violence. 

[Strokes]

Just now, Buce said:

 

 

You're both old enough to remember the Poll Tax riots, a perfect example of what violent protest can achieve.

And recently the BLM protests have definitely achieved things.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, The People's Hero said:

Indeed; I don't honestly think its that important what the MSM say; unless they influence a lot of people away from what SHOULD be the prevailing narrative and the real story; since that sort of momentum puts pressure on local MPs and Govt itself and they can force change on this.

 

Any illegality and negativity as a result toward the 'cause' just muddies the waters and makes it easier for the Gov to ignore it, I think.

 

Change is coming; but it will be despite and not due to the violence. 

Fair enough, I don’t think we are too far away from agreeing in reality. Whatever happens we must make sure the status quo is never restored.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Violent protest and general strike is all we have left in this country.

 

The government has seen to that by ignoring peaceful demonstrations, million plus marches and massive petitions. When they take all peaceful options off the table there isn't any other way to be heard. 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

But what exactly are they protesting about? The problem for Utd is they haven’t won anything of note for years. If they were top of the league and in the cl final, these protests wouldn’t be happening. Their owners, despite anything else, have given Man Utd 1 billion quid and 2 top world class managers, as well as developing the area around old Trafford. They’re businessmen, they don’t buy the richest football club in the world and expect not to make money from it. This isn’t about the ESL, that was the straw that broke the camals back, this is about the lack of success and the fact they’ve not won a title for years but Man City have risen from no where and won titles and their fans don’t like it. The only people they see they can blame is their owners.

You couldn't be further wrong if you tried

[Fox92]

 

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

But what exactly are they protesting about? The problem for Utd is they haven’t won anything of note for years. If they were top of the league and in the cl final, these protests wouldn’t be happening. Their owners, despite anything else, have given Man Utd 1 billion quid and 2 top world class managers, as well as developing the area around old Trafford. They’re businessmen, they don’t buy the richest football club in the world and expect not to make money from it. This isn’t about the ESL, that was the straw that broke the camals back, this is about the lack of success and the fact they’ve not won a title for years but Man City have risen from no where and won titles and their fans don’t like it. The only people they see they can blame is their owners.

 

[David Hankey]

Perhaps the moderators ought to put this whole Manure topic in the 'General Football' forum as not only is becoming tedious it is overwhelming all other Premier League 2020/21 news which in many cases is far more worthy of space than the moronic behaviour of some Northern idiots!!

[yorkie1999]

50 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That depends on how you want to frame your opinion. Manchester United have declined in all sense of the word since their arrival but in that particular framework yes.

Look, I’m not against fan ownership as it’s done in Germany, although it’s not exactly exciting is it, the same club have won it since 2012, and that was only a brief respite since the 70’s, but what’s going on at Utd feels more like a certain pundit wanting a seat on the board as a fans representative than anything else. If Utd had a 50+1 ownership, the first thing that would happen is the Glaziers would sell up, and the only people who could afford it would be oil monied people who would want to pump money in to put utd at the level of Man City, so you’d end up with the richest club on earth buying all the best players but because they would now be partly owned by the fans which would have had to be forced through at a government level, it would also mean that every other club would have to be run the same way(to make it fair) where would that leave us? Probably in the same position as the rest of the clubs in Germany except Bayern.

   These protests ain’t for the greater good, these protests are all about making Man Utd win everything again.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Look, I’m not against fan ownership as it’s done in Germany, although it’s not exactly exciting is it, the same club have won it since 2012, and that was only a brief respite since the 70’s, but what’s going on at Utd feels more like a certain pundit wanting a seat on the board as a fans representative than anything else. If Utd had a 50+1 ownership, the first thing that would happen is the Glaziers would sell up, and the only people who could afford it would be oil monied people who would want to pump money in to put utd at the level of Man City, so you’d end up with the richest club on earth buying all the best players but because they would now be partly owned by the fans which would have had to be forced through at a government level, it would also mean that every other club would have to be run the same way(to make it fair) where would that leave us? Probably in the same position as the rest of the clubs in Germany except Bayern.

   These protests ain’t for the greater good, these protests are all about making Man Utd win everything again.

German football is still exciting, we’ve had teams dominating the league here before and interest doesn’t wane. Also in what way is fan ownership any reason BM dominate the domestic league? What evidence is there to support that?

In non of my posts have i called for the German model or 50+1 ownership. Just change which involves fans voice being more important than broadcasters and media teams. 
 

The last sentence is disgusting, as it’s been displayed to you several times that it’s wrong and you still parrot it. 

Edited 3 May 2021 by Strokes