Talk:Glazer ownership of Manchester United

message: I've moved this to a better title as the Malcolm Glazer Takeover could be about him taking over anything. Do we think this needs its own article? We need to make sure it is scrupulously neutral to stick to Wikipedia policy. Secretlondon 12:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: There should be a lot more information on how enraged the fans of Manchester United were.
Things like them wearing black to go to matches to represent the death of their beloved club.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard LVP Real (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the controversial aspect of the takeover is relevant to the article. I'll give some thought to some appropriate wording. Fd2006 (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Manchester United fans

message: Should we add a section for the LUHG campaign against the Glazers? Conay (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. There doesn't seem to be much note on the scarves protest or the visible backing of certain personalities. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of expanding this article. Give me a few days and I'll get everything sorted. – PeeJay 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is inaccurate and incomplete to say the least. May I suggest that it be removed, or edited to contain 'facts', and not rumour. Furthermore, the content placement within this Wiki page is also incorrect, meaning it ought to be placed within the "Aftermath" section, or a section of it's own, and not within the section on the "Red Knights", because the timeline of the RedKnights is some five years after the start of LUHG.Redmoggy (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A lot of people view the Red Knights as a result of the LUHG campaign and very much part of it. The issue of fan ownership is at the heart of both LUHG and the Red Knights, and they naturally follow on from each other; it doesn't matter if the Red Knights only came to the fore in 2010, the topics are still related. Also, what are you actually alluding to when you talk about 'rumours' in the section? – PeeJay 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see what you mean by people perceiving the emergence of the RK's to the public domain because of LUHG. There are many rumours about the origins of LUHG, what has been written on the wiki page is an example of one of those rumours, perhaps referring to the LUHG website may help? Furthermore, another correction is perhaps required, it was the raising of capital via Bonds that sparked the protests of 2010. It was on Saturday 16th January 2010 that the protests began that year, after a supporter meeting that was held at O'Briens in Stretford, a group of supporters made plans to unfurl a LUHG banner around the 70th minute mark, which they did and resulted in a temporary confiscation by club security CES, this then set the tone for the next home game on the 23rd January against Hull, and branched protests at the Carrington training complex, and at Reserve games.  Hope this helps is some way.Redmoggy (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUHG Campaign  

message: Why isn't this article named "Ownership of Manchester United"? I propose we change its name to this, then add more information on previous ownership and its time on the stock market.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently working on an article entitled Ownership of Manchester United F.C., of which this article would be a sub-article. I would oppose any move of this particular article to any title other than Malcolm Glazer ownership of Manchester United F.C. – PeeJay 00:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely 'Glazer Family' would be more appropriate than 'Malcolm Glazer', given that the ultimate parent of the club is the Glazer Family Trust, in which they all have a share? Tomlock01 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Glazer ownership of Manchester United? Since they own the parent company, which is "Manchester United Ltd", my earlier suggestion of Malcolm Glazer ownership of Manchester United F.C. would be incorrect (although redirects should exist from titles including the "F.C." part). So I guess it's either Glazer ownership of Manchester United or Glazer family ownership of Manchester United, yes? – PeeJay 20:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I don't mind which since they are both accurate. I suppose Glazer ownership of Manchester United is more succinct. I'm happy to help out with the Ownership of Manchester United F.C article if you need/want it.  Tomlock01 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try my best to get the Ownership article finished, and then I would be happy for you to look it over. If you have any changes in mind right now, run them by me on the talk page. – PeeJay 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name

message: I read this whole article and get the sense it was written by an United fan who's clearly upset with the Glazer's ownership. All I see is negative in every sentence and it's quite unnecessary in my opinion. I think a section where it shows how much money the Glazer have spent to bring in players and trophies that have been won should be added and in turn make the article less on sided. La Fuzion (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to tell me exactly how much of the Glazers' own money they have actually put into Manchester United? Or better yet, can you find a source in the media? The fact is that Manchester United's activity in the transfer market has been mostly paid for out of revenues made in spite of the Glazers, not because of them. In fact, were it not for the massive interest payments, United would probably be even more active in the transfer market than they currently are. Remember a couple of years ago when United were offered David Villa by Valencia? We could have got him if we didn't have £500 million of debt. Probably could have kept Tevez too. So sure, you can say the article isn't neutral, or you can say that it accurately reflects the state the Glazers have put Manchester United in. – PeeJay 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not neutral. 

message: Should an infobox stating Manchester United plc financial data, ownership per ownership rights and slice in share capital appropriate? Matthew_hk tc 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. – PeeJay 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox