Man U fans to launch 'alternative' team shirt
Share
Fans pressure group, the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) is looking to ramp up its range of alternative merchandise in a bid to rob the club’s owner of revenue.
The group, which is looking to oust current owner the Glazer family, is launching a limited edition alternative team shirt “identical in quality” to Manchester United’s replica shirt, with all profit going to the British Heart Foundation.
The black, green and gold shirt displays the supporters trust’s “One Love” strapline instead of a corporate sponsor. It will retail at £19.99, which MUST claims is half the price of an official club shirt.
A spokesman for MUST says: “This is the fans’ shirt, with all profits going to charity, rather than the Glazers’ shirt, with all profits going to the Glazers, banks and other corporations.”
The group is also considering how the One Love brand could be used for other “appropriate” merchandising opportunities. It has previously sold T-shirts at the club’s Old Trafford home ground.
The move comes a week after it emerged that the Red Knights, the group of City financers looking to buy the club, shelved its £1bn takeover bid.
The group is said to have been put off by the £1.5bn that current owners the Glazer family are said to want for the club.
MUST backed the Red Knights stance, describing the £1.5bn asking price as a “ridiculous premium”.
Both MUST and the Red Knights are angry with the £700m debts the Glazer family has saddled the club with.
MUST has previously run press, digital and marketing activity.
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:49 am
MU merchandising comes under NIKE not the Glazers. NIKE bought up the rights for a fixed period some years back, so how exactly does this hit back at the Glazers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Attwood | Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:30 pm
To answer the question from Anon, what it does is bring Man U as a company into disrepute. There are mumblings about the wisdom of being associated with a club in the state Man U are in, and this will be one more hit.
If Nike found that their sales were at around half the level they expected, they would be fairly cheesed off and would express their opinion through the normal leaks. The next sponsors would offer only a fraction of the price for the rights to be associated with a club whose supporters hate the owners.
Tony Attwood
Untold Arsenal
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:46 pm
It would be interesting if Man Utd adopted the FIFA stance on ejecting fans who turn up in merchandise not officially sanctioned/ non-sponsor dress. I can see Utd ejecting 50 or 60,000 fans just to make a point.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:53 pm
Because the Glazers still make a profit from every United kit sold?
And if you hit back at Nike, you are essentially devaluing the sponsorship deal (though it would take a great deal of kits not to be sold to see an effect), therefore when the time comes to renew, the Glazers wouldn't be able to demand as much.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 16 Jun 2010 2:25 pm
Its not just the shirts that put money into the Glazers pockets, its the high ticket prices too
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 16 Jun 2010 6:29 pm
If Nike have the merchandising license then the Glazers currently aren't making a penny on any shirts sold. The deal was done before the Glazers took over so my guess is that they would like to get this area of the business back under their control so they can milk that as well. Driving down the value of the sponsorship deal will probably help the Glazers do that. MUST should do their homework or at least not try and kid people that this will help get United back in the hands of the real owners, the fans.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wibble Wobble | Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:27 pm
@anonymous, the point is that if Nike don't sell enough shirts, then the deal they signed with Man Utd won't deliver the profits that merited the level of payment they made in the deal. Don't you see that? It's the classic campaign tactic of getting at sponsors to affect the company you're campaigning against.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Harrington | Thu, 24 Jun 2010 1:36 pm
There is another, non-cash angle to this shirt sales activity: the underdog MUST (and we all like an underdog) is creating energy, conversation, column inches and support through their actions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment