Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Man U's green and gold protest

DougieJ's picture

Watched the Manchester derby the other night and noticed the green and yellow scarves. I presumed this was in reference to some anniversary or other of their predecessors Newton Heath. I now discover it's a protest statement against the Glazers.

Just wondered what the views of the Man U supporters among the massive are. As a Rangers fan, I've watched in some amazement as a particularly vocal section of the support, spoiled rotten, imho, by the Souness years, when we could legitimately be called the biggest club in Britain, launched the 'We Deserve Better' campaign. This was directed against a management that had brought the club to its first European final in 36 years and delivered the SPL title the following season and are currently sitting 10 points clear of a Celtic in far ruder financial health (in fact, with a healthy turnover and virtually zero debt, surely one of the healthiest clubs financially in the UK?)

It seems for the self-styled 'true fans', any mere baubles the clubs manage to pick up on the way, even domestic championships or European trophies, are somehow tainted 'pyrrhic victories'. The idea that you can deliberately forego a title in the here and now for one supposedly of more meaning at some distant point down the line is severely suspect in my opinion.

0

when

were Rangers the biggest club in Britain?

0
Vorgongod | 30 January 2010 - 12:19am

I'll have you know...

... QPR used to be huge.

1
Billybob Dylan | 30 January 2010 - 12:29am

Souness took over

as manager in 1986. The ban on English clubs, following the events at Heysel in 1985, meant Rangers could temporarily reverse the normal flow of players from Scotland to England and attract established English internationals such as Terry Butcher, Chris Woods and Trevor Steven, together with, later, sought-after Scottish players such as Richard Gough. The lure of European competition, together with a world-class stadium and, no doubt, a not inconsiderable amount of cash, means Rangers can legitimately be described as such at the time.

0
DougieJ | 30 January 2010 - 12:31am

I agree

that's all.

0
Leedsboy | 30 January 2010 - 8:41am

It is amazing to recall that...

Alex Ferguson took a pay cut when he moved from Aberdeen to Manchester United.

0
Patrick Crowther | 30 January 2010 - 4:15pm

sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear

.......In what context,even allowing for for the ravings of the disturbed, could Rangers EVER have been considered the biggest club in Britain?

2
Vorgongod | 30 January 2010 - 12:34am

Ah well

if there was a brief moment on the back of Heysel, that explains it....and makes it honourable...Good point.

0
Vorgongod | 30 January 2010 - 12:37am

Just out of interest,

since I've declared where my allegiances lie, what's your team?

0
DougieJ | 30 January 2010 - 12:56am

new

Apart from the fact that Rangers have never been the biggest club in Britain[is the wine kicking in Dougie?] didn't Souness start the spending that has left you in the pickle you are in now. He did the same with Liverpool as well.He is without doubt the most dangerous manager ever to set foot in a football club. He should have a warning on him like cigarettes. This man may kill your club.
Anyway as a hoop I really hope you dont go bust, Dougie.

0
paintyface | 30 January 2010 - 1:06am

I repeat

that a legitimate case can be made that, for a relatively brief period brought about due to Heysel, Rangers were the biggest club in Britain.

As far as 2010 is concerned, Rangers, and Celtic, can unquestionably be described as, by any measure, major UK clubs. The only reason the likes of Aston Villa etc can be viewed as bigger is through the prism of ludicrously inflated TV values.

Anyway - the point of this thread was to question whether it is worthwhile foregoing a title or trophy now due to the belief that 'better times are just around the corner'. It is that mentality that would describe Man Utd's triumph in Barcelona in '99 and Liverpool's in 2005 as pyrrhic victories. I beg to differ. Do you?

0
DougieJ | 30 January 2010 - 1:17am

I would desperately tramply beg to differ

The point of this thread is that the statistical aftermath of shameful tragedies such as Heysel should not be dredged up a quarter century after the fact to substantiate some fatuous notion about a Glaswegian football club's perceived momentary ascendancy. A lot of people died that day, don't you think that standing over their corpses with a stats notebook is a little, I dunno, wrong?
Or do you feel it's worth it that your point's been 'proven?'

0
Vorgongod | 30 January 2010 - 1:39am

That's a ridiculous post

and is not what DougieJ was doing at all.

4
Johan | 30 January 2010 - 7:47am

That's Entertainment

I think it's about time that some supporters stopped thinking that they have some sort of proxy ownership of these multi-million pound businesses. My perception is that most of the money pouring into the premiership clubs comes from television rights and the vast majority of viewers of any one game is essentially neutral. In the last 7 days I've watched 6 full matches, enjoyed most of them and not been that fussed who won any of them. This is an entertainment medium.

1
JohnW | 30 January 2010 - 7:39am

No football club started out as a business

The fact that there is now a lot of money involved doesn't mean that clubs should no longer be accountable to their supporters.

0
Spartacus Mills | 30 January 2010 - 9:13am

I agree but there's also no

I agree but there's also no reason why it should be accountable. Other entertainment arenas manage to sell tickets without a dedicated following. As I said before, most people the watch, say Man Utd play these days are not Man Utd supporters. If the entertainment is good enough people will keep paying. I subscribe to Sky Sports solely for the football, if the standard of entertainment goes down then I'll stop paying. If a football club has a lot of empty seats and it seriously affects their income then perhaps they need to court a dedicated fanbase but I suspect they will always go, it's the ones that want top entertainment that don't go when a team drops down a division.
Man Utd supporters are proud of the fact "their" club wins a lot of trophies but it can only do that by spending a lot of money, that's been the case for as long as I can remember, a lot longer than the premiership has existed for. In fact a huge number (by no means all) of Man Utd supporters support them precisely because they are and have been successful.

0
JohnW | 30 January 2010 - 4:09pm

Fair points

Though you've reminded me of a comment my friend made at the riverside last season, as the teams ran out accompanied by 'Let Me Entertain You'.

"I've not come here to be entertained. I've come to watch the footy."

0
Spartacus Mills | 30 January 2010 - 4:16pm

Green and White

I'm impressed with the style and level of protest taken at Man U. They still get behind the team and yet make a point.

I do expect the green and white scarves to be in the official club shop by this afternoon though.

0
Leedsboy | 30 January 2010 - 8:43am

As a Huddersfield Town fan ...

... we seem to have several sorts of supporters, and it depends on when they started watching the team what their expectations are.

I started supporting them about 1976, as they were dropping down the divisions. As such I have no expectations whatsoever, except more misery.

There's a part of the crowd who only knew Town when we were in the second division (using a small 's') and we looked like we were going to go up to the first division, till it all ended badly and we plummeted again. Still, the fans who started to watch us then expect us to be up there again, and they boo when we lose, and they call for the Manager Out or Board out and they sulk that the Rugby League side and the Football team are closely related.

The faction who knew Huddersfield as the 3-Successive Championship winners back in the 1920s are thin on the ground. It seems, for them, that past success, which was beyond anything anyone had done back then, is a little treasure they keep close to their heart, and even though we've gone through some bad times, they still *know* we're a great team who have done miraculous things.

So I guess this is the same with any club who have had some success. If the fans have dined at the top table, they expect to be up there again. I hesitate to suggest this is emblematic of the modern world, that kids throw wobblers when they don't get their way. Maybe that's too big an extrapolation to make.

In my opinion, over the last few years, sensible governance of HTFC and it's attendant business has meant we have a solid base to grow on, not for meteoric success, but for slowly building a better side and climbing the divisions. We will have glitches along the way, and my big dread is that the vocal contingent who boo when things don't go right force dramatic changes when it's not needed.

A final note about Town - a while back I looked up our attendances over the years. If you factor out the away support, our average attendance if we're toward the top of the table is about 16000 and the average at the bottom is about 9000, regardless of what division we're in.

0
smithylad | 30 January 2010 - 10:12am

As a Blackburn Rovers fan...

I'm with Smithylad. I don't think you can call any victory phyrric.

I started following Rovers in 1977 and bought into the same level of expectation as you. We enjoyed an incredible time in the 1990s, but I still felt we have *earned* our Premier League status since our re-promotion of 2001. If anything the earthy skint underdog status is something I feel more comfortable with now. Does that make sense?

There's a lad who posts on my blog complaining at our fan's small mindedness in having Burnley as rivals he even used the phrase "when I started supporting Blackburn in 1994 our rivals were Man U".

0
Michael Taylor | 31 January 2010 - 6:52pm

Between the Red Devils and the deep blue sea

Your club is either a business, in which case you do what it takes to make money and spend it on top players to chase trophies to make more money, or.... it's not.

Manchester United are obviously an example of the first model, and have been since long before their recent glazerisation. It's often forgotten that it was only because of the share-inflating shenanigans of a condemned-meat wholesaler (nicknamed "Champagne Louis" 40-odd years before Keano's "prawn sandwiches" sneer) that they could afford to bring Denis Law back from Italy to give them the leg-up they needed to rise from the ashes of Munich. In other words, the underlying idea of the green and gold campaign - Manchester United should return to its roots and represent the people of Manchester - has been more an ideal than an attainable goal for a very long time now.

Athletic Bilbao are an example of the second model. They only field players from their ground's area of influence: the Basque Country - an area the size of Lincolnshire. As a result, their trophy room looks like a Soviet supermarket and they don't sell a fat lot of shirts. But they do remarkably well in the circumstances. They've never been relegated, they have the most loyal support in La Liga, and they do occasionally make it to the odd final (as they did last year - that they should then get trounced is neither here nor there; they get their big day out which is what counts). The upshot is that while they may not be huge in Hong Kong, nobody can claim they're anything other than Bilbao's football club.

And those are the choices. To opt for one you have to forgo the other.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 30 January 2010 - 10:32am

'their trophy room looks like a soviet supermarket'

Superb!

I still think it is possible for a club to run as a business without totally screwing the fans over.

Malcolm Glazer bought Man United with huge loans, then put the ticket prices up in order to service them. One United fan likened this to someone stealing your car, then expecting you to pay for the petrol, which, whilst not a completely accurate analogy, does sum up how it feels to be a supporter in this day and age.

0
Spartacus Mills | 30 January 2010 - 10:52am

Soul power

Agreed. And - at least in highly impractical theory - the Barcelona option is always there: cooperative-type ownership, heavy investment in building loyalty through identification with the local region (e.g. the pointed ".cat" suffix of Barça's website), and the youth programme as the main focus of talent-spotting, where the punters feel they belong to the club because the bulk of the players - and even the manager - have belonged to it since they were kids.

But my point was more about the romantic hankerings behind the green and gold campaign. Getting rid of the Glazers would be a merely cosmetic change that might sort out the clubs finances but wouldn't touch its long-sold-off soul. I get the impression they want it somehow to be "our" club while remaining a "great" club, and it's just not going to happen, is it? Not now.

In other words, they can never be Liverpool. There's far too much water - or champagne and condemned meat - under the bridge for that.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 30 January 2010 - 11:30am

"They can never be Liverpool"

Interesting comment Archie.

Can I ask what you mean by that? From my perspective I see more similarities than differences:

- Huge success at points in their history
- Emergence as a major team through the work of charismatic (and Scottish) managers
- Major human tragedy involving both clubs
- Current ownership structure (and fan resistance thereto)

I'm genuinely intrigued by your comment.

0
Paul Waring | 30 January 2010 - 11:46am

I'm intrigued too, to be honest

It was a natural conclusion I was quite surprised to found myself writing, and it's something I've never thought about before.

Maybe it's the glamour angle that Anfield - in retrospect, probably wisely - has always eschewed. Let's compare their respective icons since both clubs have been successful. At one end of the M62 we have George "Fifth Beatle" Best, Big Ron's cigars, King Eric's film-noir shirt collar and Spice Boy Beckham's latest tat, while at the other there's just a series of ur-earthy Weegies (from the Saint to Souness and Dalglish) and Rushie's naff tash. More recently, even their flash Latins have been notably different in style too: it was Torres's backstreet peroxide job versus Cristiano Ronaldo's six-pack and designer underpants.

It's a contrast that dates back to the Sixties. If Busby - and Champagne Louis Edwards was just another one of his babes in many respects - was all about "class" and being a "gentleman", then Shankly was "guts" and "feeling the colours" with even more vehemence than the Kop. Even the names "Matt" and "Bill" gave us an idea what to expect, didn't they?

A class thing, then? A second-city-looks-down-on-its "common"-neighbour thing? I'm not sure. But the "corporate images" of the two clubs have been very different for a good while now.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 30 January 2010 - 12:20pm

I think you're probably right, you know.

Never thought about it that way before but I certainly agree with the points you make.

Liverpool did flirt with the 'glamour' angle a while back I suppose - I'm thinking the 'Spice Boys' era and the white suits at Wembley - but it didn't seem to sit well with either the club or the fans.

With regard to the whole ownership thing - I really don't know what I want for my club (Everton). We've overachieved for a while now under David Moyes, operating under very tight financial constraints. My concern is that - having taken us as far as they can - Moyes will inevitably take a bigger job elsewhere and we will lose the players that have taken us this far to clubs that can deliver the trophies and medals most of them deserve.

So for the club to progress, it needs investment. But then I look at United and Liverpool and see the dangers of that sort of leveraged investment - and I don't want that. I look at Man City and see a club that has totally lost its soul (and its integrity) in an unbelievably short space of time. And I don't want that either.

But without that, the best my club is ever going to achieve is a place in the Europa Cup/League thing and - just possibly - the odd cup final (or even win). And I'd probably take that, given the alternatives on offer. For all his faults (and there are more than a few) our Chairman is a fan first and foremost - and the club should not give that up lightly to become a rich man's plaything.

0
Paul Waring | 30 January 2010 - 12:51pm

The Barça option

Good to see you back,Archie."The Barça model,Here we go.Your point about about Bilbao,who i'm going see lose today,hopefully,is excellent but all this misimformed nonsense about Barça does my head in.
1) FC Barcelona is supposed to be a Sporting club owned by it's members. The Members get to vote every 4 years over who becames president. They have the choice to choose between the same millionaires every year and that is as much power as they have.Real Madrid,Benfica and Bayern,Dortmund all run along the same lines. This is implied,especially among the UK press,that Barça are unique and that any Tomas,Dick or Jordi can run the club. Not true.
2) The Unicef thing,while the sentiment is excellent.two things;How much per shirt sold do Barça donate to UNICEF. It's less than 1%.
Because UNICEF is a charity,Barça get tax relief on nearly everything.
The Second point is the Club rules state that if shirt sponsorship come into being ,A Catalan company should have first option. There's isn't a cataln company big enough to fork out the sort of money Barça consider right for their shirt and you think Barça aren't already sponsored ?.Count the Nike swooshes on Their kit ?
3) It's supporter run; When they played Arsenal in the champions league final they recieved 22,000 tickets. how many went on sale to Real fans ?. 4,000 !!!. Barça has over 50 "Directors" each one was given over 250 tickets each,the players only got 10. Corperate sponsors got the Rest. The Club tried to backdoor this by selling tickets to the local version of the AA who provided travel packages including a flight,one night in a hotel and a match ticket. Yours for only 2,000 euros. If it's supporter run then why do they treat themselves so shabbily ?
4) To finish though i could write a book..Barça see themselves as the only club in Catalunya. This is seriously insulting to RCD Espanyol,Gimnastic Tarragona,Lleida and Girona and many many more. This using the club as a political tool hasn't gone down well with the Catalan independence brigade who feel it trivializes their cause. While they like the promotion of Catalunya they know that the behind the door corruption could bite them in the Cule. The other thing about them using local players doesn't really ring true either. Catalunya is much bigger than the Basque country and while there are some local players. Valdes,Puyol (Girona) Xavi (Tarrassa,it's about 200kn away from the city) and that's about it. Messi came through the youth team but he ain't from these parts. If Catalunya became independent Barça would be begging to be allowed into the Spanish league, Barça need Real Madrid and the likes of Depor and Racing way more than they need league matches against Sabadell,Ripoll and Puigcerda.Who are they ? Exactly
To summarise. Barça are only different to Man Utd,Chelsea etc in that they vote on the president. Barça's debt is up there with Man Utd's but creative accounting keeps it hidden and under Platini's propsed scheme to keep debt ridden clubs out of The Champions League,they too wouldn't be allowed in.
p.s i didn't even touch the Favouritism shown to them by Refs as i'd be here all day. Not having a pop at you ,archie. Just putting the record straight.

0
Sour Crout | 30 January 2010 - 12:59pm

You really

really don't like them, do you, Paul?

0
Archie Valparaiso | 30 January 2010 - 1:33pm

Understatement of The Year

No,Mate. I don't.It's this 'holier than thou' thing and playing the victim that gets right up my nose.
the only thing worse for me,is people who've lived here for a few months telling me "We Beat you" (Espanyol,usually involving Barça's star player 'Arbitro'). I always reply, Who's WE? Americans usually.
I broke tradition recently and went to an English pub to watch Villa vs Blackburn and the Liverpool v Spurs game was on. When Liverpool scored loads of people cheered,Not a scouser amongst them. Plenty of home counties voices though. That's a bug bear for another day.
and as i said earlier,great to have you back. we just need Retropath2 to return.

0
Sour Crout | 30 January 2010 - 1:45pm

I think we're reaching a sort of consensus here

It seems we have a choice. You can either opt to watch the best football in the world - the Champions League A-list, basically - or you can support your local team and suffer as they win nothing playing football that's never even going to set their own goal-ends on fire, much less the world.

I've done - and do - both. And my memories of my once-local non-leaguers Mossley's Big Day at Wembley (they lost) are in many ways as fond as those I have of watching George Best as a kid or Messi last month. For the suffering, I've got Cádiz, me.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 30 January 2010 - 1:57pm

Wasn't the 'romantic hankerings' option the drive behind

'United Of Manchester FC'?

http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/history.php

"The material theft of a Manchester institution, forcibly taken from the people of Manchester, was the tip of a pyramid of destruction, with changing kick off times for the benefit of television, soulless all-seater stadia full of ‘new’ supporters intent to sit back and watch rather than partake in the occasion, heavy handed stewarding and ridiculously priced tickets propping it all up."

0
stimpy | 31 January 2010 - 6:51pm

Presumable they also want a wage cap

of £20 per week and rickets all round. It was so much better in the old days...

0
Mark JF | 1 February 2010 - 3:52pm

I presume the supporters all wear flat caps and mufflers

and carry rattles as well.

0
stimpy | 1 February 2010 - 4:53pm

Man United

During the premier league era at least, Manchester United was the most well run club in the world. No debt and both financial and sporting success.

Currently the club has continued with the sporting success, but the mountain of debt is quite possibly crippling.

Manchester United fans, just like fans of other clubs, feel ownership of the club, even if there is no legal ownership. Even if it is completely irrational to care what 11 multi-millionaires do each week we do.

0
Kjell | 31 January 2010 - 6:20pm

If the ManYoo fans really want to get rid of the Glazers...

...then they could start by not putting forty quid each in the Glazers' pockets every other Saturday.

The Glazers clearly know the fans don't love them, and just as clearly don't give a stuff - so long as the fans keep buying the tickets and the merchandise.

0
Paul Waring | 30 January 2010 - 10:58am

Football (and music) are businesses

that will continue to be run by businessmen for a long time yet. And business has 1 simple requirement: make money for the owners. There's something a bit odd about Man U fans complaining because the club's owners are making money while they're still seeing some of the best players in the world play some great football in front of them. (If they wanted some money spent on that cruddy pitch, I'd be a bit more sympathetic mind.)

0
Mark JF | 31 January 2010 - 6:41pm

it's FC United of Manchester

we're run as a one member one vote club voting on issues such as ticket prices, merchandise etc

the green and gold scarves are admirable and hopefully the glazers will sit up and take notice as they are not wanted now that the clouds really have disapeared and their shoddy business dealings are revealed

hopefully supporters at other clubs whose owners are questionable such as portsmouth and dare i say it liverpool will do the same and rid these parasites

0
junkiecosmonaut | 1 February 2010 - 3:00pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd