When traveling on the tram in Manchester, the rules are clear.
Dogs are banned and have been since the Metrolink’s inception in 1992, with the exception of assistance dogs and pets being taken to/fromx the PDSA charity in Old Trafford.
Justifications for retaining the ban today include concerns regarding passenger safety, fouling, damage to trams, animals’ behaviour, delays and people with allergies. But for the majority of Manchester’s dog owners (and dog lovers), the whole thing seems rather ridiculous.
After all, if you can get the train (or bus) in with them – why can’t you then get on the tram? Those living in an outer borough (or even further afield) might not even realise this isn’t allowed until after they’ve already got into Manchester. It’s definitely been my experience, and it’s maddening.
There’s been a number of campaigns over the years to lift the ban, but we think that now – following a series of lockdowns where more people than ever have gone and got themselves a furry friend – is the time to make it happen.
ADVERTISEMENT
Metrolink
The first campaign to nudge against the reinforced door of Metrolink’s stubbornness came in 2014. A local change.org petition was created and amassed over 1,000 signatures, forcing Metrolink to agree to a review in 2013 – the first time such a thing had even been considered in the tram’s history.
That consultation involved 2,400 participants, surveying them through a mix of online and passenger surveys.
ADVERTISEMENT
The results? After a delay of four months in releasing its findings, TfGM Committee Report for Resolution in November 2015 revealed only 28% of Mancunians actually supported the current ban, with 43% in favour of allowing dogs to travel – if certain rules were met.
At the time, these included being on a lead, paying a child fare, traveling off-peak, and keeping off seats.
The remaining 29% supported dogs travelling at any time without restrictions – meaning that 72% were in favour. Begging the question, if most people are supportive of the move then why are dogs still banned today?
ADVERTISEMENT
Greater Good Science Centre
Fast forward to 2015, and we find Lib Dem Councillor Iain Roberts fighting in our dogs’ corner.
Six years ago, the Stockport lead for TGfM campaigned hard for a trial run that would allow caged dogs to ride in carriages – overkill in our opinion. (In fact, we’d argue perhaps a few of the people traveling on the tram might benefit from the occasional cage, too).
In Roberts’ defense, though, at least he was trying. At the time, he told The MEN: “Until now, TfGM has always refused even to conduct a trial. I am very pleased the Lib Dem campaign is making progress.”
It’s not clear if those cages would have been supplied by dog owners or by Metrolink themselves, but it does seem that there was a proposed limit of one container per passenger.
This sort of proposal kind of reminds us of the NYC ‘dogs in bags’ debacle, in that it doesn’t really make much practical sense – and it’s the sort of thing us Mancs would love to defy.
ADVERTISEMENT
Here’s why. The idea of caging a dog might alleviate the fears of some passengers, but inevitably in practice all this serves to do is stress dogs out – making the whole thing a lot worse for all passengers, dog lovers or not, in the long term.
Just like we saw Dobermans wearing IKEA bags in New York, we expect it wouldn’t have been long until Mancs started getting equally creative with these cages.
38 Degrees
In fact, we know for a fact many owners already do twist the existing rules – often putting assistance dog harnesses on their pups to get around the tram’s accessibility exemption for guide and hearing dogs.
Good intentions or not, Roberts’ careful plans were also rejected by Metrolink at a second bylaw review – despite support from RSPCA bosses at the time who said it would be beneficial for the animals if fewer pets were left at home all day.
2018 saw another failed attempt at overturning the ban, this time by local dog owners Adam Wilcox and Sam Elphick with a petition that gained nearly 7,000 signatures. The pair accused Transport for Greater Manchester of discriminating against dog owners, given that services elsewhere in the country don’t bother imposing such restrictions.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Met’s justification for upholding the ban today seems to be centered around a risk assessment from 2015, which relies heavily on the excuse that “Metrolink operates as a high-frequency, high-volume, unstaffed system and there is no representative on board to assess the potential risk posed by animals.”
@Sad_Dog123@OfficialTfGM Hi there. A consultation regarding this was held a couple of years ago and the majority answer came back that dogs shouldn't be allowed other than assistance dogs. Services can get very busy and safety of all passengers is priority. Thanks.
— Manchester Metrolink 🚊 😷 (@MCRMetrolink) May 14, 2021
This is what Councillor Andrew Fender, then-chair of the TfGM Committee, argued at the last review. But we’d dare to venture that things have moved on quite significantly since then.
New measures introduced due to Covid make this argument much less compelling today, given that Manchester Metrolink has now significantly upped the number of staff on the services it runs across the city.
The tram is also now running “double units” at ten-minute intervals to ensure social distancing on trams – proving that when there’s a will for change, there’s a way.
Perhaps someone at the met just really doesn’t like dogs? At this point, we really don’t understand why else this outdated bylaw is still in play.
Come on, Metrolink – now’s the time to turn it around and make yourselves popular with Manchester’s dog owners again. We’re slowly becoming the majority, after all.
News
Manchester United announce record revenue despite on-pitch struggles
Danny Jones
Manchester United have declared a record revenue figure for the full 2025 fiscal term, even with their poor performances on the pitch over the past 12 months.
They may still be a continually struggling Premier League side who seem to be in a perpetual state of transition, but they remain nothing short of a global giant in terms of sporting brands.
Yes, despite Man United recording two of the worst finishes in domestic history in the previous two campaigns and head coach Ruben Amorim having already overseen the worst start to a top-flight season in the modern era following the defeat on derby day, the football club has reached a monetary milestone.
According to their official reports for the fourth and final quarter of the financial year, they brought in a record-breaking £666.5 million throughout 2024/25 – but, as always, it’s more complicated than that.
"There are some tough decisions to be made"
BREAKING: Manchester United have announced record revenues for 2024/25 of £666.5m – but the club still made an overall loss of £33m 🚨 pic.twitter.com/jlQS7SMjJ8
Released on Wednesday, 17 September, Manchester United PLC confirmed that they had managed to record the biggest revenue figures on several fronts despite crashing out of the Europa League, finishing 15th in the table overall and failing to secure a place in any European competition this season.
The first half of Amorim‘s tenure at Old Trafford saw the club’s worst competitive placing since 1973/74, a.k.a. the last time the Red Devils were relegated from the first division.
Nevertheless, a fresh shirt sponsorship agreement with Snapdragon, new brand partnerships with the likes of Coca-Cola, an extension of their contract with travel experience company, SportsBreaks, and numerous other deals saw United achieve a record commercial revenue of £333.3m.
Elsewhere, match revenue was also up and reached new heights, tallying approximately £160.3m in the 12 months leading up to 30 June 2025 – the most they have ever registered when it comes to ticket sales, concessions, and other transactions in and around game days.
Although this number is a reduction of more than 70.8% what they lost last year (£113.2m), there is still plenty of concern among supporters over how money is still not only being spent but moved around.
Co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the INEOS board did pay sizeable chunks of MUFC’s debt, which has piled up at an alarming rate in the two decades since the Glazer takeover, but there has still been plenty of borrowing.
In addition to a number of shorter-term loans, there has also been an increased level of amortisation and significant transfer spending this summer, despite being admittedly cash-strapped.
As well as actually having less money to play with over the past 12 months, they are also set to receive less in TV rights and broadcasting revenues this season due to not making it into any European competition, hence why they went on a post-season Asian tour to try and make up for funds lost.
It’s estimated that the business earned a further £8 million from these games, but it’s also worth noting that significant sums have been spent not only on new signings but also on severance fees and redundancy packages, so it’s hard to assess how much this extra injection helped with the fine margins.
While it's good to see that we're paying down our long-term debts, I'm a bit worried about how the club have maybe over-leveraged short-term borrowings. Debt restructure needed imo. pic.twitter.com/LQuUdbzK1h
Divisive CEO and former City Football Group exec, Omar Berrada, wrote in the comments section of the full findings and financial report: “As we settle into the 2025/26 season, we are working hard to improve the club in all areas.
“On the field, we are pleased with the additions we have made to our men’s and women’s first team squads over the summer, as we build for the long term. Off the field, we are emerging from a period of structural and leadership change with a refreshed, streamlined organisation equipped to deliver on our sporting and commercial objectives.”
He adds: “We are also investing [in upgrading] our infrastructure, including completion of the £50m redevelopment of our men’s first team building at Carrington, on time and on budget, following prior investment in our women’s team facilities, to create a world-class environment for our players and staff.
“Meanwhile, planning continues to meet our ambition of developing a new stadium at Old Trafford as part of a transformational regeneration of the surrounding community.
Total Manchester United revenue may be up but they’re about to shell out seismic outlay for their new stadium costs.
Berrada signs off by insistig that for the club to have “generated record revenues during such a challenging year for the club demonstrates the resilience which is a hallmark of Manchester United.
“Our commercial business remains strong as we continue to deliver appealing products and experiences for our fans, and best-in-class value to our partners.”
“As we start to feel the benefits of our cost reduction programme, there is significant potential for improved financial performance, which will, in turn, support our overriding priority: success on the pitch.”
What do you make of Manchester United’s 2024/25 annual report and how it fits into the wider picture/struggles elsewhere around the club?
FIFA confirm new changes to international breaks – and many fans are divided
Danny Jones
Global sporting body FIFA have announced new changes to the annual football calendar and the ever-divisive international breaks, specifically.
It’s fair to say that not everyone is in agreement over the update to what many fans and even players already find a frustrating format.
Put simply, FIFA have revealed that they will be merging the traditional September and October breaks into one extended period of international football from 2026 onwards.
Once again, although the decision has been met with plenty of support, it has also faced just as much, if not potentially even more, resistance.
That's well better. Always thought instead of having 3 short international breaks in autumn we'd be better off having one long one
As detailed by multiple outlets following full confirmation on Monday, 13 September, footy fans are now looking at a combined 16 days of watching national teams in World Cup qualifiers and other fixtures.
While other clubs further down the footballing pyramid will still be able to watch their team, supporters of Premier League sides and several other divisions will see domestic action cease for roughly three weeks when taking into account rest days between international and club fixtures
Besides incorporating more teams into this year’s World Cup (now a 48-team affair) and the still relatively recent advent of the Nations League – which UEFA introduced in the hopes of creating more interest in the much-maligned international breaks – this is one of the biggest changes in some time.
At present, there are typically four breaks: September, October, November and March/April – not including major tournaments themselves.
One criticism of this format has been the stop-start consequence it has on club football, and indeed, struggling to create any real momentum and/or excitement, as well as the impact on form it sometimes has on players both away on national team duty and when they get back to their clubs.
I suppose it’s better than having two different breaks in Sept and the October, and the stop start nature of the club season.
Another big concern these breaks have always been met with is the added risk of fatigue and injury.
Despite being athletes who regularly train to remain at the peak of their physical fitness, the increasingly congested fixture calendar – particularly for those playing in England, with multiple cup competitions, the prospect of European football AND no break over Christmas – continues to push bodies to the limit.
Once again, these new changes to international breaks won’t come into effect until next year, but there are plenty of pros and cons that professionals and supporters alike will continue to debate until the new schedule is implemented.