crackerjack

Well-known member
Interested to know Man United fans*' take on the stories (persistent in recent weeks) that the Glazer's takeover could backfire on the club spectacularly. My closest Man Yoo mate cut up his club credit card in protest when they bought the club; now he's a season ticket holder, travelling up once a fortnight from London town. There was a sense that maybe it was all for the good when Utd won the league last year, but is it really all about to go tits up?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/6986096.stm


*particularly if those fans happen to be of a free market fundamentalist disposition;)
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Winning the league last season seemed to be - if not despite - certainly not because of the Glazers. Either way, I think most football fans would rather their club (or all clubs for that matter) were not owned by billionaires, especially if they are not interested in the game and see it purely as a business venture (or way to get their money out of Russia or whatever).
On this particular issue it's hard to know who to believe really, just have to wait and see I guess. My thoughts are that if they were having financial difficulties of that kind would they have been able to spend so much over summer?
 

vimothy

yurp
Just a rumour, I think, although the Glazers are not very popular here in Manchester and there are doubtless some fans who would actually be quite pleased to be proved right, even if it wrecked the club.

(Leftists will, of course, prefer not to watch capitalist claptrap and adolescent millionaires in the premiership and instead to get their kicks watching the penniless and uncorrupted sunday leagues).
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
(Leftists will, of course, prefer not to watch capitalist claptrap and adolescent millionaires in the premiership and instead to get their kicks watching the penniless and uncorrupted sunday leagues).
On the contrary, we prefer to see the workings of team spirit and collectivism operating at the highest possible level. This is a fact understood by Britain's greatest ever managers (Clough, Shankly, (spit) Ferguson), all of whom were/are leftists.
 

hucks

Your Message Here
Winning the league last season seemed to be - if not despite - certainly not because of the Glazers.
Yeah, the only cash they spent was on Carrick, which was roughly what they got for selling van Nistelrooy. And whilst they seem to have spent a lot this summer, they've recouped a lot, too.

Either way, I think most football fans would rather their club (or all clubs for that matter) were not owned by billionaires, especially if they are not interested in the game and see it purely as a business venture (or way to get their money out of Russia or whatever).
I really want this to be true, but going by the messageboards at my club, the number who would sell out to anyone with cash is staggering. I'm hoping this is one of those times where the internet is actually not an accurate reflection of real life.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I really want this to be true, but going by the messageboards at my club, the number who would sell out to anyone with cash is staggering."
Yeah, that's probably right. My previous statement was too simplistic. I think that most fans would prefer an ideal world where there were no Abramovichs or whatever.....but when other clubs have got Abramovich it's not hard to imagine that you need one of your own. It's a bit like nuclear weapons (although obviously a lot more serious), you would rather that no-one had them but if the others do you're going to have to match them.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Yeah, that's probably right. My previous statement was too simplistic. I think that most fans would prefer an ideal world where there were no Abramovichs or whatever.....but when other clubs have got Abramovich it's not hard to imagine that you need one of your own. It's a bit like nuclear weapons (although obviously a lot more serious), you would rather that no-one had them but if the others do you're going to have to match them.
New chant said to be doing the City rounds.

(to the tune of 500 Miles)

Oh you can take 500 mill/ and you can take 500 more/ Cause he's got one billion under his bed/ Oh Shi-na-wat-ra
 

mms

sometimes
still you have man city's owner who was the ex president of thailand and kicked out after a military coup, having been accused of corruption and witchcraft!
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
still you have man city's owner who was the ex president of thailand and kicked out after a military coup, having been accused of corruption and witchcraft!
That was my point. City fans don't care about the man's murky morals, or that the thai govt are trying to claw back some of the money he may(!) have embezzled. So long as there's cash to spend on buying the likes of Elano and keeping Micah Richards.
 

redcrescent

Well-known member
Just saw this, some good points here.

I would've thought it must be agony to have your club bought and sold, packaged and branded like a product, and I was sure lots of people's loyalty would suffer as a result (enter the supporters' trusts, which I think are great), but then I read the comment by hucks and it got me thinking. Willing to sell out to anyone with cash? Really? Do club members actually have a say in how things are run once the majority of shares are concentrated in a few hands? Do they care?

Also, I wonder how corporate takeovers impact on the price of season tickets and single game tickets - has anyone noticed any changes?

As a Real Madrid supporter I'm very happy there's no danger of anything like that happening to the club anytime soon, not that there isn't plenty of rotten stuff in the bowels of the Bernabéu (presidential elections are a farce, for example). :eek:



Oh, and we need more football threads on Dissensus!
 

hucks

Your Message Here
I would've thought it must be agony to have your club bought and sold, packaged and branded like a product, and I was sure lots of people's loyalty would suffer as a result (enter the supporters' trusts, which I think are great), but then I read the comment by hucks and it got me thinking. Willing to sell out to anyone with cash? Really?
The guy who was Saddam's lawyer (and, even worse, Nicholas Van Hoogstraten's lawyer), Giovanni Di Stefano, came sniffing around a few years ago. Plenty of people thought we should sell up there and then. What stuns me is the naivety of it, as if such a guy would see us as a charity case, happily spending millions of his own money on some backwater outfit, expecting nothing in return,

Also, I wonder how corporate takeovers impact on the price of season tickets and single game tickets - has anyone noticed any changes?
Man U put up season tickets this year by 15%, and also forced season ticket holders to include Champions League games, which is just dumb, as these games actually brought new, different fans into the ground, and they all sold out anyhow. And Chelsea continues not to be cheap.

Oh, and we need more football threads on Dissensus!
The truth...
 
Last edited:

redcrescent

Well-known member
Alright hucks,

It saddens me that these supremely insalubrious characters are buying their way into the EPL. I'm especially sorry for the average English fan, who I think is the most knowledgable football supporter in the world.

I read a while back that Roman Abramovich said something about investing for love of sport and not for financial gain, which could be much higher elsewhere. This got me thinking: Is it good enough to say "By investing in your club, I'm not making as much money as I could" to appear as a savior to a club facing administration? Are things really that bad, or, as IdleRich implies, is there a sort of 'arms race' going at the moment, and people are desperately looking out for a foreign businessman sugar daddy?

I'd understand if second-tier and "too good for the Championship, too weak for the Premiership" clubs would look to get a boost from investors, but Man U? Liverpool? These are huge clubs with a worldwide network of supporters, are they really in such a need of selling out?

(I remember Xabi Alonso of Liverpool speaking in an interview where he said that the first time he truly realized how English people love the game was when training had to be suspended for a few minutes because there was a funeral service for a supporter whose last wish was to have his ashes scattered on the pitch at Anfield... I just think there are things that money cannot buy and will never buy, like love for a club, and selling that club for the first best wad of cash is nothing short of treason to the spirit of your club and all your fellow supporters, living and dead.)

Those price increases you mention are very harsh, if hard pressed I'd have left the season tickets as they were and maybe raised prices for the CL or individual league games. In the case of Man U, I understand people from overseas wait for years for a single ticket to a big game, and Old Trafford is always sold out, no matter what, right?

Not that Real Madrid is a model for any other club, it's just that I know the prices for home games there and you can see a Champions League match for under GBP 11 and a league game for a bit less than that (of course you can pay 6 times more for far better seats). I think that's a good deal.

Out of interest, which club is close to your heart? And how do you see things for your club in the near future given the influx of foreign money into the game?
 

hucks

Your Message Here
My club is Norwich City. I live in London but go back for games frequntly - I was a season ticket holder for the last couple of seasons but I'm not really dedicated enough to go back every couple of weeks. On some levels, the recent influx of foreign money has made no difference - our mediocrity alone would have been enough to maintain the distance betwee us and the premiership. There does, though, seem to be a trickle down effect, where mini tycoons are coming in to our "rivals", like Leicester, Coventry, Derby, and spending money we couldn't spend. Hence the desire for our own sugar daddy.

Our majority shareholder, Delia Smith, has said that they're always looking out for investment, but she's not going to sell up entirely. She could make a lot of money doing so - she bought her shares for nothing - but makes the very good point that the club wouldn't necessarily make any money at all. to which many supporters' response is that she should give all the money to the club anyway, if she really loved us. It's so unrealistic it boggles the mind.

I see your point in investing mid ranking teams, as opposed to Liverpool or Man U, and I was amazed at how welcoming the Liverpool fans were of those two Americans. Contrast this to Man U fans, none of whom wanted the Glazers, as they felt they didn't need any "investment". I think the short answer is that Abramovich has changed the rules. Chelsea have been run at a staggering loss over the last 4 seasons, and fans have assumed that that is the only way to achieve success. Liverpool fans, in particular, are starved of success (occasional Champions League wins notwithstanding). They'll take anything.

I actually find Randy Lerner at Aston Villa quite interesting. What's in it for him? What are his realistic expectations? When Abramovich bought Chelsea, yes they were bankrupt, but they were already a top 4 side, with some very handy players (Lampard, Terry, Gudjohnsen, Gallas). I can't see Villa, even with England superstar Gareth Barry, finishing in the top 6 this season. So what's the plan?
 

don_quixote

Trent End
england superstar haha...

thing is, his realistic expectations are probably solid premiership club. the clubs make so much money by just being there nowadays that thats probably enough for him and anything else is a bonus.

football is dreadfully boring nowadays though isn't it? are there any characters at all?

i have to admit i quite admire the american franchise/draft system
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"thing is, his realistic expectations are probably solid premiership club. the clubs make so much money by just being there nowadays that thats probably enough for him and anything else is a bonus."
Is that true? I thought football clubs were fairly precarious as businesses. Going to a game in England is way more expensive than in other countries I understand and while there are probably reasons for that to some extent it is also due to a desire to maximise revenue. Of course there is a limit to how far you can take that and gates were down a lot last season I believe (except for at the top sides). I don't think it's as easy as all that to make money from footie is what I'm saying.

"even with England superstar Gareth Barry"
Complete change of subject but does anyone else think that the reaction to England winning two games in a row against thoroughly mediocre sides has been way over the top?
Fair enough they passed the ball better than they have for a while and they have had that little bit more purpose and cutting edge in the final third but the defence has looked very wobbly under absolutely minimal pressure and I'm not at all sure that was handball.
Barry has been ok but hardly a revelation and SWP still hasn't managed a cross that stays on the pitch (although he does frighten people when he runs at them). What I don't get is all the papers praising McClaren's tactical nous for putting on a big guy for the knock down against teams that can't handle it - it's not as though he saw the defence and decided to do it, he does that every fucking game, it's inevitable that it would work eventually.
I don't mean to be overly negative because there has been a definite improvement but I hate the way that all that the pundits are so short-sighted and change their opinion on everything on the basis of a couple of games. Israel (especially) and Russia haven't got any great players, look at the teamsheets and it seems clear that it should be a formality for England to batter them at home. Of course that's exactly what we haven't been doing recently but can only say that at the moment we're at a level that is the very minimum that is acceptable.
 

hucks

Your Message Here
Is that true? ..... I don't think it's as easy as all that to make money from footie is what I'm saying.
That's what I was wondering. But then look at the money David Dein has just made from Arsenal

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/09/12/how_deins_dead_money_helped_ki.html

And if the Newcastle example is anything to go by, you can make this cash from mid-table.


Complete change of subject but does anyone else think that the reaction to England winning two games in a row against thoroughly mediocre sides has been way over the top?
Totally agree. Second half was pretty shaky all round, and SWP is still not an international class winger.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"That's what I was wondering. But then look at the money David Dein has just made from Arsenal

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/20...helped_ki.html"
Very interesting, thank you.
 

redcrescent

Well-known member
Thanks hucks, that article is very good indeed - so all this money comes from TV rights then? That's crazy cash for "just being there"! I wonder what the new owners will do to get as much return on investment as the previous owners (who bought cheap and benefited from the TV bonanza) did?

there is a limit to how far you can take that and gates were down a lot last season I believe (except for at the top sides).
05/06 vs 06/07 EPL
Up= Man U, Arsenal, Villa, Fulham, Blackburn, Sheffield*, Reading*
Same= West Ham, Charlton
Down= the rest
* promoted

Attendance figures for the top 4 divisions in England (from footballeconomy.com)


Is there a 'football bubble'?

Complete change of subject but does anyone else think that the reaction to England winning two games in a row against thoroughly mediocre sides has been way over the top?
On the one hand expectations are sky-high and on the other people are so starved of success they will feast on crumbs. Realistically though, as things stand, England are certainly not among the world's top 10 teams and would probably struggle to make even top 10 in Europe. Mind-boggling if you think about it, given the available resources.

Some positive points:
- England can win games without their talisman
- The Barry-Gerrard connection in midfield (though Barry in a holding role is an O'Neill invention)
- Owen's quality shining through yet again - England's only proven world-class striker. The best thing about having the 'big man up front' is drawing away defenders so Owen has space to work. The poacher may be a dying profession but it's still a noble one, and Owen's numbers speak for themselves

I really hope you make it, Euro 2008 would be much poorer without you, and I'd love Scotland to be there too.

What I don't get is all the papers praising McClaren's tactical nous for putting on a big guy for the knock down against teams that can't handle it - it's not as though he saw the defence and decided to do it, he does that every fucking game, it's inevitable that it would work eventually.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Einstein, attributed)


PS Violence should not be tolerated, but seeing Big Phil Scolari lash out at Dragutinovic yesterday made me think a little about where England could be under a foreign coach with some fire in his belly.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I wonder what the new owners will do to get as much return on investment as the previous owners (who bought cheap and benefited from the TV bonanza) did?"
Good point. I don't know if they can.

"Is there a 'football bubble'?"
Possibly. I don't think that clubs have done themselves any favours with prices. If they lowered the admission I think that gates might rise again. Charlton have good deals for kids and cheaper tickets for less glamourous games I believe, that is another way forward and it's interesting that they outperformed almost everyone else in terms of keeping their fans in a season where they were relegated.
"Realistically though, as things stand, England are certainly not among the world's top 10 teams and would probably struggle to make even top 10 in Europe. Mind-boggling if you think about it, given the available resources."
Well, that's why everyone is so frustrated I guess.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Einstein, attributed)"
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that he keeps doing the same thing against different teams so one day he is going to play the team who is vulnerable to it. I would see it as genius if he varied his strike force to find the weakness of each team but that's not what he's been doing.
Where are you from as a matter of interest Redcrescent?
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Complete change of subject but does anyone else think that the reaction to England winning two games in a row against thoroughly mediocre sides has been way over the top?
Fair enough they passed the ball better than they have for a while and they have had that little bit more purpose and cutting edge in the final third but the defence has looked very wobbly under absolutely minimal pressure and I'm not at all sure that was handball.
Barry has been ok but hardly a revelation and SWP still hasn't managed a cross that stays on the pitch (although he does frighten people when he runs at them). What I don't get is all the papers praising McClaren's tactical nous for putting on a big guy for the knock down against teams that can't handle it - it's not as though he saw the defence and decided to do it, he does that every fucking game, it's inevitable that it would work eventually.
I don't mean to be overly negative because there has been a definite improvement but I hate the way that all that the pundits are so short-sighted and change their opinion on everything on the basis of a couple of games. Israel (especially) and Russia haven't got any great players, look at the teamsheets and it seems clear that it should be a formality for England to batter them at home. Of course that's exactly what we haven't been doing recently but can only say that at the moment we're at a level that is the very minimum that is acceptable.

The hoop-la comes from the expectations being so expeertly lowered during McLaren's previous year in charge. Israel were dreadful - hard to imagine them as the side that got so many good draws in recnet years. Russia are an OK team - neither great nor poor - but they had two 15 min spells (one between 1st and 2nd goals, the other at the star of the 2nd half) where they were clearly the better team.

Tactical genius? Not sure how many people have actually said this (though if you want nuance, don't go to the BBC's old boys' act anymore), but I do think McLaren showed some courage to re-engage a national joke because he thought he'd team up well with Owen. The easy (Sven) option would've been Johnson or (god'elp us) Smith.

I think Barry was ace, actually - barely a misplaced pass all match. Again, credit McLaren with sporting his resurgence under O'Neill rather than opting for big money Carrick or old warhorse P Neville, as I'm sure Sven would've done.

Realistically though, as things stand, England are certainly not among the world's top 10 teams and would probably struggle to make even top 10 in Europe. Mind-boggling if you think about it, given the available resources.
We'll see, but I disagree. Qf in the last three major tournaments and four consecutive 3-0 competitive wins says otherwise, even if none of them were against powerhouses.
 
Top