Thanks for posting. I hadn't seen this latest update.

On your last point, I don't think buying a small % of shares as fans would make any difference in terms of blocking someone buying the club or even having an influence because the person taking over can force that % size to sell irrespective of their views.

It has to be 10% to be able to stop them from forcing you to sell.

The Wonderfully Sweet Little Pea, a small % won't be decisive, but everything has to start somewhere.

Unrelated note: the one-star rater strikes again! I always wonder about the psychology of the person who leaps on a basically factual article to give it the single star treatment. Is it the same kind of person who feels the need to draw a generous depiction of his genitalia on the wall of a toilet cubicle?

@ The Wonderfully Sweet Little Pea

That's correct - once a buyer has secured commitment from sellers representing a certain percentage of shares, it can force the rest to sell.

My point isn't about blocking sales, it's about getting an initial foothold from which to begin the process of gaining influence.

If fans already have a stake, a buyer might be happy to let them keep it as a sign of goodwill. It's even conceivable that they'd offer fans the chance to increase the stake, or give them some representation on the board. Good business people want to keep their customers happy and a new owner would surely want to secure a better relationship than the Glazers have had.

You also have to remember, the Glazers might not sell to a private buyer, they could just float the rest of the club. If that happens, any head start will be worth having. Of course, that's prefaced on you agreeing that fans should want to have a stake at all - not everyone agrees with that.

Could be good news – is it motivated at all by the new financial fair play regulations?

Anyone know much about our latest signing - http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx?sponsorid={4ED489CA-E5F3-4EE4-94C2-671952C12942}

Not a huge Mister Potato expert, I'm afraid!

Whatever else you say about the Glazers (and I've said plenty), you can't deny that they're good at bringing in the sponsors - the DHL training kit deal was amazing.

Personally – if they could get rid of the debt I would be happy for them to remain in charge – what do other people think?

I know the supporters owning the club is what people will say the “ideal” situation and of course I want us to have a say in what goes on – but as is evident on 606 with peoples knee-jerks reactions and opposing views on players I think its best to leave things in the hands of people with the experience and expertise

As with most systems, you can identify great and disastrous examples of fan-run clubs. There is the chaos of Real Madrid with a series of populist, self-serving demagogues of Presidents. There are also very well managed German clubs where professionals make the decisions but things are done in the interests of the FC and its fans.

Personally, I'm sceptical of the notion that only owners who are in it for profit are capable of running a club well financially. A club that reinvests its profits can hire the best marketing / commercial team they can afford and make their pay and their jobs dependent on performance. Real Madrid and Barcelona don't seem to have any problem with merchandising, sponsorship, and global exploitation of their brand. Moreover, to justify having money-maker owners as a net benefit to a club, you have to show not only that they make more revenue than the alternative, but that the additional revenue they bring in increases the reinvestment power of the club AFTER the money they take out in dividends or whatever.

The best scenario I can envisage is one in which the club is owned by a mass membership / fans trust but is run like a business. It is structured so that the management is accountable to the ultimate goal of long term success as an FC. The club doesn't hold presidential elections but the executive directors answer to a board made up of long-term Manchester United people (Bobby Charlton types) and experts, who are responsible for making sure the day-to-day management of the club is meeting the principles of the trust.

But I recognise that ideal worlds don't come around often. Like aquantumofsolskjaer, I'd recognise a debt-free Glazer ownership as a better situation than a debt-ridden Glazer ownership.

I think it’s probably a case of better the devil you know, obviously people were anti-glazier for the debt they heaped on the club but it is a legitimate financial transaction that occurs everyday. My only fear is when Fergie decides to step down how much of a backseat they will take with a new manager.

Totally agree with your sentiment giggsnscholes about trying to get a foothold, but I guess I'm saying that the effort and expense of getting a foothold doesn't do much good if it's then got no traction when you need to use it most.

Let's say some guy worse than the Glazers comes along, who disagrees with the fans wishes, then the foothold just gets wiped out immediately.

I do see what you're saying about grabbing a % now and then hopefully trying to build from there but given the amount of shares that they're talking of releasing onto the market, the amount fans would get in Singapore, and the vast % of the club they are keeping private, I just can't see how a fans share would ever be allowed or capable of growing to do any good whatsoever.