Guerrilla

@jamierkennedy That airplane that was doing the rounds yesterday was annoying.

This is the first Open at Birkdale we've seen with the drone camera. I'm obsessed.

I’ve started to see works in advance documents come through for (AIL) moves to the new footprint. Working backwards from the site to Salford Quays. Essentially, what size ship, what size crane (do we need a crane), what transport and importantly, what is the extent of the route enabling works. • what ships, cranes, modular transporters are needed and where in the world is it • what size crane can you get set up on the quay • can we avoid the need for a crane and roll off a ship with axles • once on land, what is needed to be removed to get sections from Quay to new site ** **this is the real challenge. Like most civils works, there are statutory notice periods after applications to change highways, drop cables (telecoms and power). Plus, the rule is ‘the Project Pays’.

It's simple really. You just don't mess with Mark Hughes.

Hi JD, really strange to see how you and the ISLO engage with fans on here. The language used, the perceived lack of appreciation as to why fans are appalled at yet another initiative by the Club. One that has impacted the many and not just the few (that it intended to). Statements are seen as posturing, as you can appreciate, the various supporters groups, have written various that have taken zero heed. Its is understandable some of the reaction (aside from personal attacks and snide comments). It’s not a time for slagging, both ways that is. United will be grinning that the supporters trust are fighting online with the support. Divide & Conquer. For transparency, it’s best not to take these matters to D.M or to the table with a beer. At the same time, it’s best not to engage with name callers on here, and those that don’t add any value to what we are all trying to achieve. • Can we assume that MUST and FF didn’t know about this operation that looks to have started in March? • Will MUST meet with the Club to discuss the issues, and the return statment, including the requests, in the week ahead? • Is it reasonable to say that the Club more often than not (ie Majority of the time), will continue with initiatives when there is large scale opposition, including opposition from MUST? • Would MUST consider getting appropriate counsel to assist them in defending Manchester United supporters on these matters? • Do you think the Club would be less likely to work outside their own terms and conditions on ticketing, stick to appeals process timelines, provide full disclosure and abstain from unethical practices if there were such a counsel (unelected, unbiased, un-fazed with no-face to lose) sitting on the side of MUST and the Fans?

@MufcBones @chriscurleyman @AnnieEaves I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve said we should meet up to talk, meanwhile you’re giving it the big un on the internet. Go on then. The fridge is full at the MUST house. Come for the derby.

Mindblowing that you choose to slate United supporters without any understanding of what is actually happening. 🤡

@NUCLRGOLF He’s a good lad. His mates are p*icks. He knows deep down the f*cked up trampling the grass.

🚨🕺⛳️ LIV Golf star Bryson DeChambeau is putting on a performance for the crowd at Royal Birkdale ☠️

@Gracemahony5 @ManUtd Calm down Grace.

What an embarrassing result for a pre season friendly Same old @ManUtd new team,new problems Not good enough .they should be winning games like this Dosen’t inspire confidence going into new season.

An eagle and a burd

@Mikec81united Very good point. It’s a time for unity. A United approach is best for the team and best for business, ultimately.

Does the club not remember what happened with the Liverpool game. The club going to war on season ticket holders is reckless and stupid and will cause backlash when really we should all be getting behind Michael and the team. I will happily go to war as for to long clubs seam

@makkathfc @laurennUTD Spanish Butcher is 👌🏼

@laurennUTD Spanish Butcher steak restaurant, Dishoom Indian restaurant 👌

Any food recommendations for Glasgow please ⬇️

@YoonitedAndy @laurennUTD Second this. Green Gates is 👌🏼 The one up the road (50 yards), the Dhabba is grand too. Lychee for a Chinese 🇨🇳

@laurennUTD Green Gates for a curry. The best I’ve ever had

@NinetayFour 😂😂

Now costs money to listen to MUTV commentary on the United app ffs, club run by penny pinching cunts #INEOSOut #GlazersOut #RatcliffeOut

You’re way out there Jon. That’s not fair. The reps represent. At different levels, granted.. But Dips engages on here and in real life, and is approachable. The issue is that the reps have little power. The people that need to be addressed in the current situation, and with regards to the lack of impetus, are those with a mandate, subscribers, signatories and members.

@OhCheesesChrist @dipsMUFC take notes on how to actually help fans and not "just comply" cheers

In 2022, the club was pulled up on how it handled a supporter's sanctions appeal. The Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO) upheld the complaint and overturned the club's decision. One of the key issues identified was that the club had not followed its own published sanctions process. Given the number of sanctions now being issued, it's fair to ask whether those lessons have actually been learned. Let's look at some of the IFO's findings from 2022. "The IFO found certain shortcomings in the Club’s management of the suspension and appeal." This wasn't simply a disagreement over the outcome; the Ombudsman identified failings in the club's process. "The Club gave the complainant less than three days to appeal the sanction, although according to their Terms and Conditions he should have been allowed 14 days." The club's own Terms & Conditions allowed 14 days, yet the supporter was given less than three. Anyone currently going through this process should familiarise themselves with the published timescales and ensure they're afforded the rights set out in the club's policy. "There is also a requirement that the appeal should be heard in the first instance by a Senior Manager." That raises a reasonable question: who is considered the "Senior Manager" for these appeals? If that person sits within the same function responsible for issuing sanctions, supporters may reasonably ask how the club ensures the appeal process remains sufficiently independent. "Although the Club told the complainant on [REDACTED] that his appeal had followed the documented process, that clearly was not the case, as they had told the complainant at the outset that the appeal, submitted on [REDACTED], would be heard by the Appeals Panel in week commencing [REDACTED]. In response, the Club said that they recognise that their communications could have been clearer and acknowledged that the sanctions process appeared to have been rushed through." The IFO concluded that the documented process hadn't been followed. The club accepted that its communications could have been clearer and acknowledged that the sanctions process had appeared rushed. Given the volume of sanctions currently being issued, supporters are entitled to ask whether the club has taken sufficient steps to ensure the process is robust, transparent and fair. "They had taken that decision on the basis that Appeals Panel meetings take place on a monthly basis and they had wanted to ensure that as many cases as possible were reviewed by the Panel without having to wait a further month. The Club said that, in hindsight, from a supporter's perspective it might appear that the correct process had not been followed, but they would like to clarify that that was not the case for the complainant." The club explained that it wanted as many cases as possible heard without waiting another month. While understandable from an administrative perspective, it also highlights the importance of ensuring operational convenience doesn't override the procedures and protections set out in the club's own rules. For me, the bigger concern is the process itself. When an organisation has previously been criticised by the IFO for shortcomings in its sanctions and appeals process, it's reasonable to expect those issues to have been fully addressed. With the apparent increase in sanctions in recent days, I think supporters deserve confidence that every case is being handled consistently, fairly and in accordance with the club's published Terms & Conditions. If supporters believe those standards are not being met, then referring concerns to the Independent Football Ombudsman may be an appropriate course of action. @FootballOmbuds should be made aware of the club's recent actions.

@MU_ST @stefanosbowers @Merckxissimo Have you been hacked MUST?? Some attitude towards someone that is a member / subscriber, given he has had an email. I’ll give you both barrels if you start turning on supporters that you are supposed to represent.

@stefanosbowers @Guerrilla33 @Merckxissimo It's a discussion paper to raise issues and get answers in an attempt to change club policy. Would you prefer we didn't try to get a better outcome for our fans and just talk bollocks posturing on twitter instead 😂

The United situation has taken a turn whereby the lay people sitting in front of the Club, on behalf of fans, are out of their depth. It is time for the organisations holding responsibility and accountability to the fans, to get organised and put forward a pathway on how United can be properly challenged on multiple front’s. Crowdfunding for proper representation, by established professionals that can take action up to litigation is well overdue. Professionals that have no skin in the game, and are not benefactors nor even supporters of the Club. There are many agencies such as the ones below that have the experience, the knowledge and the potential to stand up for supporters. • Great James Street Chambers • Reeds Solicitors • ITN / Simon Natas (who MUST are familiar with) • Blackstone / Nick De Marco

Slicing at

There is always time for MUST to step up and be a real force for United fans. We are going to need to have a United front and unwavering / un compromised figureheads as we go through this season, and the seasons ahead where big change is on the cards. We cannot be sleepwalking and all accepting, or it’s finished.

@MufcBones @Guerrilla33 @Merckxissimo @MU_ST @Drasdo @MUSTChair You’ve got more chance me landing on the moon than the MUST mob going out on a limb for what’s right and wrong. You only have to look at other clubs official representatives and the stellar work they do. MUST are a bunch of self serving out of touch imbeciles. Facts.

7. Interesting to hear why, when the ability to have a strong relationship, do fans share login details? The comment on the Away apps is interesting. The Away ticket system is massively flawed, and it doesn’t take a bit of automatic software to realise that all is not as it seams. Random is not a word that can be used to describe the fans that go through the away turnstiles. @MU_ST have been asked to look into this issue (by paid members) recently, in the spirit of openness and transparency. In reality, the club should know and appreciate that due to the way they have set up the away process, after ballot and with returns, the most successful way to get a ticket is to sit there refreshing the computer like a lunatic.

The Fans Forums have spoken. And it's a bit of a read: In acknowledging an email to us earlier today from the Club, the Fans Forum is writing to express our deep concern about the large number of fans who have, in recent days, received club sanctions as a result of analysis flagging suspicious activity patterns relating to their accounts. We would like to initiate a proper discussion with the club but we need to do that with cool heads, to give it the consideration required. For that reason we are asking the club to pause any further issuance of new suspensions and hold off cancelling any season tickets to allow that discussion to happen without pressure growing further on fan representatives. Reps have been receiving messages of concern and anger - meanwhile criticism on social media is building and doing damage. The Fans' Forum fully supports the Club's objective of tackling ticket touting, organised abuse of the ticketing system and the use of automated purchasing technology. Genuine supporters are among the biggest victims of these practices, and robust action against professional touting has widespread support across the fanbase. However, where genuine supporters perceive that obtaining tickets through official channels has become increasingly difficult, some may adopt behaviours which, whilst not motivated by profit or commercial gain, nevertheless attract scrutiny. It is therefore essential that enforcement activity distinguishes clearly between genuine supporters trying to obtain tickets for their own and friends use and those engaged in organised commercial abuse of the system. We should focus on improving the systems and processes that drive supporter behaviour, rather than penalising genuine fans acting in good faith. We are increasingly concerned that the current approach risks causing significant unintended consequences. If measures designed to protect genuine supporters instead result in long-standing Season Ticket Holders feeling unfairly targeted, the Club risks doing more damage to supporter trust than the abuse it is seeking to prevent. There is already a widespread perception among many Season Ticket Holders that they are facing an increasing number of restrictions, policy changes and sanctions. Over recent seasons this has included price increases, changes to ticketing policies and tougher enforcement measures. Relationships between the Club and supporters had begun to improve after what has been a difficult period, but these latest actions risk reversing that progress. As supporter representatives, this is particularly concerning. We are regularly asked to explain and defend changes where we believe they are justified and in supporters' interests. That becomes extremely difficult if loyal supporters believe they are being treated as suspects rather than valued supporters. The level of frustration we are hearing is growing rapidly and should not be underestimated. We therefore ask the Club to consider the following principles:- 1.⁠ ⁠Investigations must not become convictions The use of sophisticated analytics to identify suspicious behaviour is entirely sensible. However, such systems should identify accounts requiring further investigation rather than providing sufficient evidence, by themselves, to justify sanctions.Suspicion should trigger investigation; it should not constitute proof. 2.⁠ ⁠Different standards should apply to Member accounts and Season Ticket Holders We understand from the club that the scale of abuse involving “disposable” Member accounts managed by touts is substantial and may justify a lower threshold for initiating investigations. However, Season Ticket Holders represent a very different category. Their identities have already been verified, many have held tickets for decades and have established histories with the Club. The cancellation of a Season Ticket can represent the loss of a relationship with the Club and friends built over decades and often spanning multiple generations of the same family. Where sanctions of this severity are contemplated, the evidential standard should reflect the seriousness and permanence of the consequences. We do not believe behavioural analysis alone should ever be regarded as sufficient evidence to sanction a Season Ticket Holder. It must be based on actual evidence of wrongdoing - especially where the ultimate sanction of cancellation of a season ticket is to be applied. 3.⁠ ⁠Supporters must be able to understand the case against them We appreciate the Club's reluctance to disclose detection methods which could undermine future investigations.However, there is an important distinction between intelligence and evidence. If information cannot be disclosed because it would compromise investigative techniques, then it should be used as intelligence to trigger enquiries, not as evidence to determine guilt. A supporter cannot reasonably defend themselves or make an informed appeal without understanding the substance of the allegation against them. Fundamental fairness requires that supporters know enough about the evidence relied upon to respond meaningfully.Supporters should have access to a fair and genuinely independent appeal process. Where sanctions are imposed, supporters should be given sufficient information to understand the allegations, provide an explanation and submit relevant evidence. An appeal process cannot command confidence if supporters are unable to understand the basis upon which decisions have been reached. 4.⁠ ⁠Club systems can influence supporter behaviour We continue to believe that aspects of the current away ticket returns process unintentionally encourage behaviour which many supporters perceive as necessary if they are to have any realistic chance of obtaining returned tickets. Supporters know that others are monitoring the system continuously and therefore feel compelled to do likewise. In most cases, this is not driven by commercial gain but by extraordinary commitment and determination to follow the team.If the Club believes these behaviours are undesirable, the long-term solution is to improve the design of the ticketing system so that supporters no longer feel they must compete in this way. Good system design is generally more effective than increasingly punitive enforcement. 5.⁠ ⁠Touting should be clearly defined There should be a clear distinction between professional ticket touting and other breaches of ticketing policy. For most supporters, "touting" means repeated or organised resale for financial gain above face value. In our discussions and in communications to supporters (and indeed rules) we have to adopt the definition which is commonly understood by fans otherwise we are talking about different things. Professional touting activity deserves the strongest sanctions and enjoys broad support for firm enforcement. Conflating it with other forms of ticket misuse risks undermining confidence in the disciplinary process and reducing public support for action against genuine touts. 6.⁠ ⁠Sanctions should be proportionate For breaches which do not involve professional touting or fraud, the default response should normally be education and a warning for a first offence.The Club should also consider whether aspects of its own ticketing systems may have contributed to the behaviour before determining an appropriate sanction. We should manage fan behaviour by education and by optimising systems not by applying sanctions which do huge damage to club-fan relations and create massive resentment undermining all the good work we do together. 7.⁠ ⁠Sharing of account login credentials Sharing of log in details with trusted friends and family is common and should not be an offence. If the club disagrees then we should have a proper debate on this point and review the rules and communications after that debate has concluded but not apply any rule changes (or contested interpretation of existing rules) retrospectively. We know many fans (including, no doubt members of the FF) do this to help manage accounts for friends and family - for example when applying as larger groups for away games. This should not be outlawed. 8.⁠ ⁠Finally, reassure supporters regarding the future of Season Tickets There is an increasing belief among supporters that recent policy changes and tougher enforcement are being driven, at least in part, by a desire to reduce the number of Season Ticket Holders in favour of higher-yield ticket sales.Whether or not this perception is correct, it is becoming increasingly widespread and is damaging confidence. We therefore ask the Club to provide reassurance by confirming: the current number of Season Ticket Holders; that the Club is not pursuing a policy of reducing Season Ticket numbers; and that Season Tickets surrendered or withdrawn will continue to be reallocated as Season Tickets rather than converted into Member or other ticket categories. The Club and supporters share the same objective: ensuring tickets are used fairly by genuine fans. Achieving that objective requires not only effective enforcement but also confidence that investigations are fair, proportionate and transparent. Maintaining the trust of loyal Season Ticket Holders is essential if the Club is to retain the goodwill and support of our fanbase. Nowhere does this apply more than our away following and we should not be doing anything to damage what is considered the best away support in the league. That enviable support has been built on a sense of camaraderie, community and a culture involving fan networks and ticket sharing over decades.

6. Education and warnings should always be the first step in cases of ‘private’ misuse. Which needs to be set aside from someone who purposely designs, purchases, uses software to gain advantage on tickets, and uses such tickets for commercial gain. Massively different situations, all lumped in the same basket.

1. This point is valid. If the club suspect something, then they need to reach out and advise that there is a suspected breach(s) of terms and conditions. Disclose what they have, and ask the member / ST holder to provide information that may help their investigation, by a certain date. Blanket banning (particularly at this time when there are no games), serves little purpose other than to antagonise and cause fear to resentment. It’s just wrong.

Having a pause on these sanctions, if the ideas cannot be scrapped entirely, only kicks the can down the road and has the potential to leave fans stuck when the season starts. How confident can the FF be, that they can convince United to disregard the details gained from their cost exercise? It would be better to let the club continue their vendetta, with support for those singled out, in time for the start of the season.