Andy

Here's the deal. I'm just the best there is. Plain and simple. I wake up every morning and I piss excellence. M41/N49

[Andy @winnieuk]

@nhargreaves74

[Andy @winnieuk]

@nhargreaves74

[Andy @winnieuk]

@Ankaman616

[Cheeses Of Nazareth @OhCheesesChrist]

The Latest MUFC Ticketing Sweeps: A Practical Guide for Match-Going Groups

Many more supporters have received emails from the club today. While the tone has been softened compared to previous compliance sweeps, the objective is clear: the club is targeting "super-users" who log into multiple accounts from the same network or device to submit away applications, handle renewals, check ballot results, etc.

My first response to United would be: understand your supporters and how they actually behave. Fans operate in communities, helping each other out and working together. Instead, you've looked at the data without fully understanding the behaviour behind it. Perhaps that's because you've relied on the customer journey SeatGeek provided, but supporters simply don't use the platform in the way it was designed. Yes, there are touts, but it is not clear from the negative responses you're receiving that you've taken the completely wrong approach.

The data analysis strategy makes sense in principle to stop possible touts, but the execution is deeply flawed. For decades, match-going fans have formed close-knit communities. We share logins to manage group away applications, support elderly/vulnerable/non-tech savvy friends and relatives, or, in one instance, I assisted a mate who was travelling abroad and could not bypass credit card 2FA checks; he relied on me to renew his Season Ticket for him. Others handle group renewals purely to consolidate Credit Card loyalty points. That’s clever thinking by the end user, not trying to get around a system.

If United wanted to find actual ticket touting, their analysis should have focused strictly on data linked to logins on the official MUFC Mobile App where ticket access is. That is where ticket touting could matter. Instead, they have cast an overly broad net, likely because app authentication jumps out to a standard mobile browser, making it difficult for their systems to separate standard web portal activity from app usage. I would advise United to focus their efforts in this area; this is likely to be an area of ‘suspicious activity’ which they claim to have on many accounts.

Crucially, there is absolutely nothing in the official Season Ticket T&Cs that prohibits you from sharing your online login details with someone you trust. Unless the club can definitively prove that a third party logged into your account, downloaded your digital ticket, and used it to enter the stadium and not you, they have incredibly weak grounds. This should be robustly challenged.

Furthermore, the Manchester United website is notorious for technical glitches. The Ticket Office itself has routinely advised fans to use manual workarounds, including logging into each other's accounts, to bypass issues that the SeatGeek platform simply wasn't built to handle. You can even manage a friend's account over the phone if permission is granted. Fans are stepping in to help each other because the club lacks the necessary staff to provide real-time support. It is entirely unfair to weaponise these practical workarounds against loyal supporters. I’m not even going to get started on the Queue-it software, which can block you on anything from first access to the site, to multiple refreshes for away tickets.

If you've received one of these review emails, my first advice is not to respond immediately. I know there are ongoing discussions with the club about their recent demands, and the situation could look very different by the end of the week – although it may not.

So, don't rush into anything. Instead, use the time to think about how you want to structure your individual response to best protect your rights. If I hear of any updates, I will, of course, post on the back of that.

What you should start to think about is the following, to be prepared:

- The Multi-Account Access: Explain that you act as the administrator for a genuine, non-commercial match-going group to coordinate away applications and renewals so you can travel together. Explicitly state that this is done manually with permission, and you have never logged in to download, use, or resell another person's match ticket.

- Third-Party Data Protection: The club will ask why you accessed a specific number of accounts. Do not volunteer a list of your friends' names or membership numbers. Under UK GDPR, you must protect their third-party data. Simply explain why you do it collectively.

- Devices and Locations: Keep your device list broad (e.g., personal phone, work phone, laptop). For locations, keep it standard (e.g., residential home, workplace network). Do not provide specific addresses. Crucially, the club's data analysis likely fails to account for how modern UK internet works. For example, Sky Broadband utilises MAP-T technology, meaning up to 16 separate households can share the exact same external IP address at the same time. A single IP flag could incorrectly link completely unrelated households; however, Device IDs would be different, and I have no idea what thresholds United has applied in what seems to be a poor analysis of the data.

- The Photo ID Demand: The club claims they will delete your ID after verification, but sending unencrypted scans of a passport or driving license via standard email is highly insecure in transit. Refusing to email the ID and demanding a secure upload method is a logical use of GDPR principles. If they insist on identity verification, they must provide a secure, encrypted upload function directly to the MUFC servers. Let’s also remember they used ID verification on us last summer, so why not now? I’ll tell you why: down to cost.

I know United read my posts, so I suggest they read the following statement:

“Sending unencrypted passport or driving license scans via standard email is explicitly advised against by the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) due to interception and storage risks. Under ICO guidance on Article 32 of the UK GDPR, organisations should provide secure, encrypted upload channels for sensitive identity verification."
(Link: https://t.co/C8MNh2Ut41)“

- Hold Them to Account: Throughout this review, ensure the club strictly adheres to the contractually promised 14-day turnaround timelines for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the appeals process.

If they uphold your restriction without providing specific evidence, you should immediately file a Subject Access Request (SAR) to force them to hand over your full system logs. See my post here: https://t.co/KhLav1ihBC

If you wish to start to look at a response, below is an email template you can use to frame your formal email reply to [email protected]. Please note that this is just a template, and you should ensure it is updated and adjusted to suit your specific individual circumstances and group setup before sending.

Email Response Template

Dear Appeals Team,
Re: Ticketing Account Review – Membership Number: [Your Number]

I am writing in response to your email regarding the review of my ticketing account activity between March 1 and July 12. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my account activity, which is entirely legitimate, manual, and non-commercial.

Explanation of Multi-Account Access:
I act as the administrative lead for an established group of match-going friends and family members. Because we travel to fixtures together, I log in to their profiles solely to coordinate linked away match applications and to assist with season ticket renewals. This is done entirely manually with their explicit permission for administrative ease and to navigate known website limitations. I do not access these accounts to download, transfer, or use digital match tickets, nor do I engage in ticket resale or automated bot activity. This should be clear in your telemetry data.

Device and Location Confirmation:
Devices regularly used: [e.g., My personal mobile phone, work tablet, and personal laptop].

Locations:
My account is primarily accessed from my residential home network, and occasionally from my place of work during standard application windows.

Account Management Explanation:
As stated above, my account is managed manually by myself, or by a trusted coordinator within my match-going group whom I have authorised to submit joint applications on my behalf. When submitting group applications, we log in sequentially to our group's profiles to ensure our applications are linked for travel logistics.

Identity Verification:
While I am fully willing to verify my identity, sending raw, unencrypted scans of official government identification via standard email is highly insecure and creates an unnecessary data protection risk in transit. Please provide a secure, encrypted upload mechanism directly to the Manchester United servers so I can safely submit this data.

Given that this activity represents standard, manual group coordination by a loyal supporter, I look forward to your swift confirmation that my account is in full order.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Membership/Season Ticket Number]
[Your Phone Number]

[Cheeses Of Nazareth @OhCheesesChrist]

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.

[Andy @winnieuk]

@michaelgove

[Cheeses Of Nazareth @OhCheesesChrist]

"We are committed to building a world-class stadium with our supporters, not just for them, with atmosphere, affordability and accessibility at the heart of our thinking."

Collette Roche

When Collette says "with our supporters", I'd genuinely like to know which supporters she's referring to. Everything I've fed back through fan surveys, and everyone I know who regularly attends matches, whether they've been going for a few years or a few decades, wants to stay where we are. Spend five minutes on social media, and you'll find plenty of others expressing the same view.

If the club insists that the majority of supporters favour a new stadium, it should publish the data supporting that claim and break that data down appropriately.

The club can separate responses from match-going supporters, season-ticket holders, executive members and regular members from those who may never have attended a game at Old Trafford. If the evidence genuinely shows overwhelming support for a new stadium, then I don't see any issue with being transparent and sharing the results.

At the moment, we're simply being asked to accept the narrative. If the majority of supporters really are behind the project, then show us the proof. Transparency would only strengthen the club's position.

It often feels as though the strongest voices pushing for a new stadium are those who rarely, if ever, attend games. Without data to prove otherwise, it appears the drive for a new stadium isn't coming from match-going supporters; it's coming from owners who still haven't properly explained how they'll fund it. Prove us wrong.

No doubt a lucrative naming rights deal will contribute, but what about the rest? Personal Seat Licences? That's hardly a solution that improves affordability. Then there's the proposal for at least 25% of the stadium to be made up of hospitality seating. As per this post, match-day pricing of tickets is spiralling out of reach for many supporters (https://t.co/zMxUgcypIs)

Let's be honest: we're not even going to sell out a 100,000-capacity stadium week in, week out, especially at current pricing levels. The club has already priced out many of the supporters it will need to fill those seats. I'm sure the business model has accounted for these scenarios, but I'd question the credibility of those projections when so many loyal supporters are already being pushed away from regular attendance simply due to affordability.

There's little value in Supporter Groups approaching this from different angles. The decision on relocation and the new build is, in all likelihood, beyond the point of being reversed. What's important now is ensuring that, as Collette said, the club genuinely listens to all supporters, but also recognises the difference between those who attend regularly, those who attend occasionally, and those who never attend but still have strong opinions on what match-going fans should want.

What we need now is a united approach from supporter groups: a coalition with a clear, consistent message. Rather than working against one another, they need to be organised and aligned, ensuring that before any key decisions are finalised, supporters have meaningful input and the club is compelled to listen, learn and implement in a way that keeps as many regular match-going supporters on board as possible. Risking that, loses so much of what Manchester United Football Club is about.

[Andy @winnieuk]

❤️

[BBC Breakfast @BBCBreakfast]

Lou Macari has been recognised for his decade-long commitment to a homeless charity in Stoke-on-Trent by being made an MBE in the King's Birthday Honours.

The former Manchester United and Scotland, who established the Macari Foundation in 2016, spoke to #BBCBreakfast

https://t.co/yMHD9lHFGf

[Andy @winnieuk]

@TeleFootball @Carra23

[Casemiro @Casemiro]

There are places we pass through in life… and there are places that become part of who we are.
Manchester will forever be my home.

To the city, the club, and every supporter, my sincerest thank you. These past four years have been unforgettable, filled with moments my family and I will carry with us for the rest of our lives. There simply aren’t enough words to describe the happiness and warmth we’ve felt here.

Thank you for every cheer, every memory, and for making us feel at home from the very first day.

Forever a Red Devil ❤️

[Colin Millar @Millar_Colin]

Noticing that "hair pulls are automatically a red card for violent conduct and three-match ban, and those are simply the rules" has been abandoned to "play on, no free-kick" within less than two weeks.

[Wayne Rooney @WayneRooney]

Brilliant chat with @B_Fernandes8 for the latest episode of the podcast. Great guy and what a player. Got to win Player of the Year 🤝🔴

[Andy @winnieuk]

@ZackPolanski

[MUST | Manchester United Supporters Trust @MU_ST]

This is not about politics; it is about ensuring that the custodians of Manchester United act in a way that unites supporters rather than marginalising any part of our fanbase.

[MUST | Manchester United Supporters Trust @MU_ST]

Manchester United belongs to all of its supporters. No fan should feel excluded from following or supporting the club because of their race, religion, nationality or background. Comments from the club’s senior leadership should make inclusion easier, not harder.

[Manchester United @ManUtd]

Their spirit will never die.

The Flowers of Manchester, forever.

[Andy @winnieuk]

@nhargreaves74 @manairport @AndyBurnhamGM @bevcraig

[David Horne @DavidHorne]

“To us – he’s always been a hero”

Recognising the incredible bravery of Sam

https://t.co/CYRXpGeIty

[Andy @winnieuk]

This 👇🏼

[Jack Pitt-Brooke @JackPittBrooke]

For all the talk about “clear and obvious”, the technology effectively demands full re-refereeing. This is why any tweak, compromise or modification is impossible. The only solution is full abolition.