Manchester United fans have been protesting against the Glazer family’s ownership since they hijacked and indebted the club back in 2005. From the Green and Gold campaign through to cancelling games, they’ve tried everything within their power to oust the reviled Americans.

They’ve turned up at Ed Woodward’s house to hold an impromptu firework party.  They’ve plastered lampposts with LUHG (Love United, Hate Glazers) flyers, hung offensive banners in every corner of the country, sung threatening songs and complained incessantly to long-suffering friends and family members.

They’ve made furious calls to sports radio phone-ins, refused to buy official merchandise and some have even taken that most drastic of steps – not buying a half-time pint.

Meanwhile, on the seething hot mess of polar impulses that is the internet (would be) sponsors have been harassed and abused. Glazer-owned businesses have been brutally – often amusingly – review bombed. Anti-Glazer hashtags have gone viral and fans from Stretford to Singapore have attempted to organise insurrections from the screen-lit glow of their bedrooms.

The net result of all this scatty creative rage is that the Glazers are STILL United’s owners. Despite having millions of fans around the globe sharing strategies and hashtags, the subjects of this collective rage remain remote and disengaged. The gods, it seems, are not listening.

And why would they? Owning the club isn’t a philanthropic venture or act of benign custodianship. It’s a cash grab by opportunistic vampires who haven’t yet sucked every last drop of blood out of the club’s weakened body. For as long as United has a weakened pulse they’ll continue to feed. It should be fairly obvious by now that they and only they will decide when they leave.

Part of the problem for supporters is the divided fan base. They need to be organised, focused and resilient. Everyone needs to play their part and, with so many moving parts, scattered across the globe, the logistics make coordinated action incredibly complex. In a world where people seem increasingly polarised, getting everyone on the same page is nigh on impossible. Some could be bought off with shiny new transfers, others demand a rejuvenated Old Trafford. There’s too many voices and too little unity.

The closest Reds came to applying genuine pressure came right after the European Super League proposals. It also helped that the protests were stoked by a Sky brand that stood to be one of the biggest losers of the mooted breakaway. Ultimately, Sky got the result they wanted and, Gary Neville aside, can’t be relied upon as an ally. Fans shouldn’t expect media cheerleaders anymore and, without a that single focus, are more likely to end up bickering among themselves while the Glazer cash grab plays out.

The white heat of those angry days, when football fans united in condemnation of a loathsome cabal of owners, already seems a long time ago. Promises of better communication and lessons learned did just enough to pacify the angry voices. A few signings papered over the cracks. But nothing really changed. A few boardroom faces moved around and buzzwords like cultural reset were tossed about.

But the club is fundamentally the same.

Fans have been marginalised over the past few decades and are now seeing the true extent of their impotence. Broadcast revenue and commercial deals have usurped them as the main source of club income. If the hardcore stopped buying tickets, someone else would take their seat. And if the seat remained empty, there would always be another official tractor tyre sponsor to cover the shortfall.

The situation at United paints a grim miniature of something seen in the wider world, with a rich elite profiting at the expense of the little guy. It will take more than stern words and righteous anger to get the Glazers’ attention.

It seems the only factor that will remove them is the same one that brought them here – money. If they receive a huge offer or see the well running dry, THEN they might decide to cut and run. But nothing fans say or do will make them turn their back on ‘their’ asset or next dividend.

Scott Eckersley