United Thread - 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
So of the last two Sponsorship deals.... The guy who signed the 1st promptly got fired for overpaying & the next company has almost gone under with investors questioning why on earth they paid so much for the rights.

Make great reading in their new glossy marketing brochure to prospective sponsors....

If anybody was "seriously interested " ( assuming that they are actually up for sale ) and thus carrying out due dilligence on their operations, potential buyers would immediately see the levels of mal-administration and pure incompetence running through the shithole of a club for decades,

Great move by the Glazers in conning the lemmings....................again.
 
So of the last two Sponsorship deals.... The guy who signed the 1st promptly got fired for overpaying & the next company has almost gone under with investors questioning why on earth they paid so much for the rights.

Make great reading in their new glossy marketing brochure to prospective sponsors....

Contrast these two stories. The Telegraph is broadly correct and balanced. The SKY article presents this latest commercial disaster as a positive for United with no mention of the background context. Totally biased coverage from SKY as usual.


 
If anybody was "seriously interested " ( assuming that they are actually up for sale ) and thus carrying out due dilligence on their operations, potential buyers would immediately see the levels of mal-administration and pure incompetence running through the shithole of a club for decades,

Great move by the Glazers in conning the lemmings....................again.
It's a great point that hasn't really been covered properly. I wonder how easy it will be for prospective buyers to take a look at the state of the Cayman Island accounts. No one knows what is happening behind the scenes in the Glazer operation and no one in the media has ever asked serious questions about how they operate. It would be a hell of a risk to take on.
 
Contrast these two stories. The Telegraph is broadly correct and balanced. The SKY article presents this latest commercial disaster as a positive for United with no mention of the background context. Totally biased coverage from SKY as usual.



Even buying toilet paper on a recommendation from SKY would be a stupid decision and they really are experts in promoting shite!
 
So of the last two Sponsorship deals.... The guy who signed the 1st promptly got fired for overpaying & the next company has almost gone under with investors questioning why on earth they paid so much for the rights.

Make great reading in their new glossy marketing brochure to prospective sponsors....
Thing is though, is that all this could reduce their price thus enabling whoever buys them to revamp the squad, stadium, structure etc. We need the price as high as possible so that the cunts are still run on a shoestring.
 
I agree and even though I know little about their business financal health, I assume they've told the rags they have no money to pay further intallments. How else do they get out of a 5 year contract ?
Like the Chevrolet deal, no journo dares ask the question 'how can they afford to pay that much'
We are the bad guys, yeh right.

Edit: the mail are reporting that the rags are buying back the deal !
It is as bent as they come and the rags are trying to cover it up.
I recall at the time the deal was announced, our very own @Prestwich_Blue wrote a piece on here questioning the sponsorship and its viability and I replied at the time that this will be the rags "Eidos / First Advice" moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.