The battle for control of Manchester United is being waged on a global scale, using the latest digital campaigning methods. As the Japanese investment bank Nomura puts the finishing touches to a bid expected to be tabled shortly on behalf of the Red Knights, Manchester United supporters' groups are calling for one last protest at Sunday's match against Stoke City and urging fans and sponsors not to renew season tickets or corporate boxes.
But for all their urging, they face one immovable object. The club's fate boils down to the desire of one family to sell. The revelation that the Glazers turned down an offer of £1.5bn from a Middle Eastern bidder would appear to give added weight to the family's long-stated insistence that they will not sell at any price.
• Glazers reject secret £1.5bn deal for United
• Rooney deal talks delayed until after World Cup
• United announce details of North America tour
• Download the latest Football Weekly Extra podcast
Even after they had repaid the high-interest loans they took out to help finance the purchase of the club, it would have left them with a profit of more than £700m, but they are said to have swiftly rejected it without entering talks. Others may conclude, though, that by disclosing the value of a previous offer they are beginning what could be a very public negotiation.
The Glazers have, officially, been unequivocal. The day after the interest of the Knights, led by Goldman Sachs' chief economist Jim O'Neill, became public, they vowed to stay until at least 2017. But, behind the scenes, signals from United's bankers about whether they would sell at the right price have been more nuanced, claim sources close to the Knights.
It has long been supposed that pressure on the Glazers' remaining business interests in the US – a portfolio of shopping malls – would hold the key. Given the lack of publicly available financial information on First Allied Corporation, it is difficult to ascertain its health. But the difficulties of its direct rivals, combined with the locations of its properties, and the fact the Glazers have continued to draw money from their sporting assets (Tampa Bay Buccaneers, of the NFL, and Manchester United) have led to assumptions that the picture cannot be healthy.
From the blogging of Andy "Andersred" Green, a fund manager and United season ticket holder who has meticulously dissected the club's finances to the genesis of the green and gold idea on a United message board and the use of the digital agency that helped Barack Obama win the US election, it has been a textbook example of how to construct a bottom up campaign in the digital age. But the longer it has gone on, the greater the danger of ennui setting in.
They can also claim to have had a major influence on government policy. The influence of MUST and the Red Knights was believed to have been a big factor in persuading first Labour and then the Conservatives that overhauling football's antiquated governance structures and seriously examining the issue of fan ownership. Sir Alex Ferguson said early on that fans had every right to protest, but the mood has turned uglier of late. Some accuse United stewards of being unfair and heavy handed, while the recent stunt of projecting "Love United Hate Glazer" images on to Old Trafford raised the stakes.
What started off as a defiantly upbeat movement has become more fractious. The protest groups claimed victory with the decision not to raise season-ticket prices for the first time since the Glazers took over. But it also blunted a key weapon. Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) now has more than 155,000 members but momentum has slowed.Those close to the Red Knights plans have been at pains to insist that the proposal is not viewed as a money-making scheme. It is likely that the investors will be guaranteed a modest annual return but face restrictions on when and how they can sell their stakes. The model is expected to envisage a greater share of the club being transferred to a wider base of supporters over time, with guaranteed representation on the board.
They plan to leave the £538m bond in place, but because money wouldn't be diverted out of the club to pay down the Glazers' high interest Payment in Kind loans (accruing at 16.25%), there will be more money to reinvest in the team and infrastructure.
It is understood that the Knights and their advisors left the decision on the season ticket boycott and the targetting of sponsors to the supporters' groups. Sources close to the Knights had earlier indicated that they were minded to avoid talk of boycotts and ill tempered protests because it might prove counter-productive. There is the danger that momentum will flag further over the close season. The impact of the season-ticket boycott and the call to arms to sponsors will be critical. The fear must be that not enough fans, and certainly not enough businesses, will put their money where their mouth is. The club insist it is too early to say whether it has had an effect.
Nomura is believed to have concluded talks with the 40-plus backers all prepared to put in up to £500m between them. The £538m bond will be left in place and the remainder raised from "ordinary" fans. MUST has also been taking regular soundings as to how that component could be structured and how much could be realistically raised, as well as gathering fan opinion on how the club should be run.
The Knights believe a sensible valuation to be around £800m but are aware they will have to pay a premium to force the Glazers to sell. But while the family have viewed the campaign, and the wider shift in the public and political mood, they also appear to have become ever more convinced of the value of their asset. The £1.2bn raised by the Premier League in its latest round of overseas TV deals was further proof of a burgeoning appeal abroad. That speaks to a Glazer overseas growth strategy that saw sponsorship revenues increase by 34% last year alone. They think they can service the bonds, invest in the team and take enough money out to pay down their own debts.
And the suspicion remains they believe that a game-changing development – a European league, the end of collective TV negotiations or the development of new broadband-based models – will boost the value of their asset even further in the coming years.
All that doesn't alter the fundamental point of the campaigners – that the money sucked out of United to service the Glazers' personal debt will inevitably make the club more uncompetitive over time That will be again highlighted in August, when United's quarterly accounts are expected to show that £70m (the Ronaldo money, essentially) has been drawn down to help repay the Glazers' high interest hedge fund loans. Gill and Sir Alex Ferguson will be able to continue to claim that there is money to spend because the Glazers also put in place a new £75m overdraft at the same time as they launched the bond issue. – but it does explain why they might turn down a seemingly fantastic offer.
It would not be the first time that the owners of a potential takeover target had insisted it was not for sale at any price, throwing in the fact they had already turned down mystery offers that set a market price. Nor is there any sign the Knights will be diverted from their plan.
The longer the Glazers remain, the more likely they are to have to deal with the fallout from the post-Ferguson era. Yet it seems clear that if they can, they will, for they are sure their asset is worth far more than even the £1.2bn at which Forbes recently valued it. The unknowable factor is just how much trouble their other businesses are in.
While they may enjoy the prestige that comes with owning one of the world's most famous football clubs, they bought Manchester United for business rather than sentimental reasons. Ultimately, money will talk. As the final whistle blows on Sunday, the protest banners will be folded up and the scarves will go back in the wardrobe. That will signal an end to the phoney war and the battle will enter its most critical phase.
The Glazers' determination to hoist a "not for sale" sign will not change that. Only one thing is clear – a period of attritional warfare will benefit neither side.
