Barcelona - more than just a club... a model blah blah blah

Originally Posted by rafabio

£#%&! KFC, you do know that if United play Liverpool 38 times in a season, no one would give a shit. United generate that much fans and viewership is because they play in a competitive league. Stoke and bolton are entitled as much money as united.

are they £#%&! ....how is it a competitive league when it has been dominated by three teams or more to the point ONE team for the last 20 years you stupid £#%&!ing @#%&! what's 'competitive' about that....

Originally Posted by rafabio

£#%&! KFC, you do know that if United play Liverpool 38 times in a season, no one would give a shit. United generate that much fans and viewership is because they play in a competitive league. Stoke and bolton are entitled as much money as united.

now who is being naive

we are so big for exactly the opposite reason ie we win all the time and have an aggressive global marketing strategy

i'm not sure that your argument about stoke and bolton being entitled to the same money stands up either. It is very difficultr to argue anything other than those clubs benefiting from the complete removal of market forces in the deal

it isn't a flat playing field for all and it never can be. whats the next argument? we haven to reduce our capacity so that gate receipts are fairer. we have to standardise our shirt sponsorship?

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

are they £#%&! ....how is it a competitive league when it has been dominated by three teams or more to the point ONE team for the last 20 years you stupid £#%&!ing @#%&! what's 'competitive' about that....

Do you think your idea for TV revenue would make for even more dominance by that club?
Do you think a league dominated utterly by one club would be very interesting? For anybody?
Do you think the TV companies would still pay big money for a one team league?

Originally Posted by dodger

Do you think the TV companies would still pay big money for a one team league?

so English football hasn't been dominated by one team for the last 20 years...we can't win the league every year but since 1992 how many times have we finished outside the top three

it's the same with this top four shite


there's a top one then the rest....at a push a top three although given that Chelsea are so far behing United in terms of titles won in that period even that is pushing it

United should have negotiated their own TV deal in the 90s ...£#%&! the rest of them

Originally Posted by dodger

Do you think your idea for TV revenue would make for even more dominance by that club?
Do you think a league dominated utterly by one club would be very interesting? For anybody?
Do you think the TV companies would still pay big money for a one team league?

dodge,

the dividing off of tv revenue would now be disastrous admittedly but that would be because so many clubs have become dependent on what is intrinsically an unfair system

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

dodge,

the dividing off of tv revenue would now be disastrous admittedly but that would be because so many clubs have become dependent on what is intrinsically an unfair system

it's completely unfair and unbalanced

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

so English football hasn't been dominated by one team for the last 20 years...we can't win the league every year but since 1992 how many times have we finished outside the top three

it's the same with this top four shite


there's a top one then the rest....at a push a top three although given that Chelsea are so far behing United in terms of titles won in that period even that is pushing it

United should have negotiated their own TV deal in the 90s ...£#%&! the rest of them

It won't be like that for much longer anyway so it's all academic really.

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

dodge,

the dividing off of tv revenue would now be disastrous admittedly but that would be because so many clubs have become dependent on what is intrinsically an unfair system

It's unfair if you look at it as a business. If you look at it as a sporting competition then it's a very different picture.

Originally Posted by dodger

It won't be like that for much longer anyway so it's all academic really.

we all know that, we are £#%&!ed and it won't be long before a 'competitive' league springs up

United's domination has had little to do with money, we've not had any for five years for a start

but the day the Divs win the league or Chelski make it 3.4.5 in a row will be down to one thing....money

Originally Posted by dodger

It's unfair if you look at it as a business. If you look at it as a sporting competition then it's a very different picture.

but its a sporting competition that is competed for by clubs runs as businesses

plus the competition itself is run as a business, as is the sports governing body

the biggest problems in football in terms of finance are from clubs being run wholly irresponsibly as businesses

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

but its a sporting competition that is competed for by clubs runs as businesses

plus the competition itself is run as a business, as is the sports governing body

the biggest problems in football in terms of finance are from clubs being run wholly irresponsibly as businesses

I would say the biggest problem is the greed that stems from them being run along capitalist principles.

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

we all know that, we are £#%&!ed and it won't be long before a 'competitive' league springs up

United's domination has had little to do with money, we've not had any for five years for a start

but the day the Divs win the league or Chelski make it 3.4.5 in a row will be down to one thing....money

and again i disagree with this

we did win a lot due to our financial clout but this was based upon success and a business strategy to market that success and capitalise on it ie we earned our right to do so both on and off the pitch rather than having bought for us or borrowing it or existing beyond our means

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

and again i disagree with this

we did win a lot due to our financial clout but this was based upon success and a business strategy to market that success and capitalise on it ie we earned our right to do so both on and off the pitch rather than having bought for us or borrowing it or existing beyond our means

not at the start we didn't, look at the players we missed out on because we didn't have the money in the 80s/90s and players who left - admittedly hardly any of them big losses - because of money they could get elsewhere

it was only when the PLC finally let Fergie spend big we were competing for the very top players, but then again how many of them did we miss out..on, thank £#%&! we broke the bank for Rooney... forget post 2005 it's a holocaust...apart from Berbatov when it comes to our transfer activity at the very top end of the market

Chelsea have bought success with Abramovich's money in the same way Blackburn bought the league....and even the Dippers and Totttenham's transfer net spend will easily top United's in the last 10 years

Just imagine if they didn't get individual tv deals in Spain, then Barca would be truly getting punished for their irresponsible spending. See they threw out Chygrynsky for 12m when he was bought for 25m a year ago.

Zlatan very likely to piss off too, and he came for 52m euros AND Samuel Eto'o(confirmed figure).

Madrid splashed 60m on Kaka who has failed hard, 35m on Benzema without giving him a chance, Fergie's got a point about value tbh.

Originally Posted by £#%&! KFC

it's ridiculous....every one hates United appaarently but who has the biggest vieiwing figures for any game every season and has been since TV games started being screened live

we should have £#%&!ed the rest off years ago and got our own TV deals like they have in Spain

cos that would make for an exciting league.

Originally Posted by safingtons

Just imagine if they didn't get individual tv deals in Spain, then Barca would be truly getting punished for their irresponsible spending. See they threw out Chygrynsky for 12m when he was bought for 25m a year ago.

Zlatan very likely to piss off too, and he came for 52m euros AND Samuel Eto'o(confirmed figure).

Madrid splashed 60m on Kaka who has failed hard, 35m on Benzema without giving him a chance, Fergie's got a point about value tbh.

He isn't, he's talking shit.

We should've thrown £30m and £160k a week at David Silva or £30m and £200k a week at Yaya Toure or maybe £30+m and £100+k a week at Di Maria. All good value and about 'the going rate'. It's the only way to improve the squad.

Oh dear dunk, Muffers will have something to say about that I reckon

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

Oh dear dunk, Muffers will have something to say about that I reckon

Hopefully

Barcelona transfers since 2003 show a net expenditure of almost 300 million euros and all we hear about is their wonderful youth system.


http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...k9PT Gc&gid=2

Originally Posted by dunk

He isn't, he's talking shit.

We should've thrown £30m and £160k a week at David Silva or £30m and £200k a week at Yaya Toure or maybe £30+m and £100+k a week at Di Maria. All good value and about 'the going rate'. It's the only way to improve the squad.

Or sign Sniedjer, for what, £13m last summer? Or Robben for something like £17m?

There is value out there, it's stupid to compare it to City's ridiculous way of going about it. United are in need of investment in the squad, we sold the best player in the world for a world record £80m after winning the league 3 years on the trott and getting to 2 CL finals back to back, winning 1 of them, we should have been in the strongest position we could possibly be in to strengthen the team, but didn't. If the Glazers were not here and we sold Ronaldo for £80m do you think we'd have signed Michael Owen?