Abromavich.........WHO???

[Steve Bruce]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/birmingham_city/6748695.stm

If this is true, we'll have a new rich club in town. Abromavich would be this guys wee boy.

Transfer values are going to rocket in English football and the whole of Europe will inevitably suffer from losing there stars to English football if all these Billionairs keep coming in.

[jebus]

**** it, English football's pretty rubbish these days anyway, and with attendences falling and public apathy rising I say let these vultures pick the bones of their game and they will eventually reach a Year Zero, sadly half the football clubs will probably be dead and gone by then

[Lionel Ritchie]

No doubt there'll be more complaints from Mr. Ferguson about football being distorted by those with bottomless financial reserves being able to fork out millions upon millions on the thirteen different goalkeepers they have to go through to find a replacment for Schmeichel. ...no ...wait.:confused:

[jebus]

Now, now Man Utd are family run club, who rely on a backbone of Asia based supporters to pay their over the odds prices for players, and they have never, I repeat, never used their resources to 'buy' a title, unlike dirty Chelsea, or Arsene Wenger

[Steve Bruce]

From a Man Utd perspective, the gripe isn't to do with a team buying a player for 30 million. It is the fact that Man Utd have always generated our own money and we spend our own money that we have earnt.

Chelsea are not a self running club and they spend Ambromaviches money. There is a big difference.

Man Utd also tries to bring players through, how many currently are there in the Chelsea team?

And Arsenal are a great club, with great tradition and Wenger is a great manager. Anyone who would accuse them of buying a team are not right in the head. My only gripe with Arsenal and indeed Mr Wenger is the lack of British & Irish Players.

[Steve Bruce]

Can I also say Liverpool has spent nearly (4Million difference) the same amount of money as Man Utd in the last 10 years. United spend there money on 2 or 3 players though but Liverpool spend it on 8 players.

We buy quality not quantity. :)

[osarusan]

It is the fact that Man Utd have always generated our own money and we spend our own money that we have earnt.


But to be fair, Man United earn part of that money by exploiting foolish consumers, especially in Asia, as skillfully as any other club. It is hardly admirable.

[Steve Bruce]

But to be fair, Man United earn part of that money by exploiting foolish consumers, especially in Asia, as skillfully as any other club. It is hardly admirable.

How do we exploit cunsumers.

If you make a statement like that you have to show the facts to back them up.

[NeilMcD]

But to be fair, Man United earn part of that money by exploiting foolish consumers, especially in Asia, as skillfully as any other club. It is hardly admirable.

I love this term foolish consumer, it implies that somehow you are knowing and these people are less educated or more ignorant than you. If someone wants to buy a jersey let them its their own free will.

[Lionel Ritchie]

If someone wants to buy a jersey let them its their own free will.

Yeah ...and if man u want 3 different away strips and a different home strip for the CL let 'em ...and if people are willing to fork out fo them all then well it's wrong to let eejits keep their money.

...and if some guy in china, india, russia, mars or wherever says "I want IN" well ...who the hell are Man Utd and Arsenal to want the gate shut behind them?


Man Utd also tries to bring players through, how many currently are there in the Chelsea team?...And Arsenal are a great club, with great tradition and Wenger is a great manager. Anyone who would accuse them of buying a team are not right in the head. You'd swear nobody else bothers trying to "bring players through" . It's just that bit harder when you're, say, Hull City and the young Eusebio you've just finished polishing is lured away by the big club over the road. Doesn't tend to happen Man Utd much though.

Ferguson (and Wenger bizarrely) are essentially telling other clubs to "accept their place" in the grander scheme of things and settle down to being bit players, co-stars and walk-ons in the Man U show.

I'd like to see at least three or four more Abramovich type charcters turn up in the premiership before I decide on it's being a good, bad or neutral thing.

[beautifulrock]

Anything that shakes up the current order is a good thing, the situation of being able to guess the top 4 in the EPL is not good for football.

[dcfcsteve]

From a Man Utd perspective, the gripe isn't to do with a team buying a player for 30 million. It is the fact that Man Utd have always generated our own money and we spend our own money that we have earnt.

Chelsea are not a self running club and they spend Ambromaviches money. There is a big difference.



And all this from a club who allowed a bunch of American mercenaries to buy them and then assign the entire debt involved in the purchase back to the club !!! Priceless....

[Steve Bruce]

And all this from a club who allowed a bunch of American mercenaries to buy them and then assign the entire debt involved in the purchase back to the club !!! Priceless....

It was a hostile takeover.

Also even though we payed over 60million in interest payments, we are STILL the most profitable club in Europe.

[Dodge]

Also even though we payed over 60million in interest payments, we are STILL the most profitable club in Europe.

And thats all that matters at the end of the day

[Steve Bruce]

And thats all that matters at the end of the day

A great twist there mate, but obviously that isn't what I was saying.:rolleyes:

But the profit we make is obviously very handy to improve our team so we can compete against these other teams who have sugar daddys.

There's definatly a better sense of achievement, when we bring success to our club within our means:cool:

[DvB]

A great twist there mate, but obviously that isn't what I was saying.:rolleyes:

But the profit we make is obviously very handy to improve our team so we can compete against these other teams who have sugar daddys.

There's definatly a better sense of achievement, when we bring success to our club within our means:cool:

All these references to 'Our' & 'We' in relation to Manchester United???
Whatever happened to you being a Linfield supporter?

[Lionel Ritchie]

But the profit we make is obviously very handy to improve our team so we can compete against these other teams who have sugar daddys.


Which came first now Steve ...chicken or egg? So far as I recall the sugar daddies only emerged as a consequence of one teams disproportionate dominance.
I fail to see the material difference between funding player purchases through share issues rather than out of the pocket of a single benefactor at any rate.
There's nothing "more honourable" about the manner in which Man U finance their dealings.



There's definatly a better sense of achievement, when we bring success to our club within our means:cool: :D Oh will you squat and push it ffs. D'ya know what'd give you a real buzz if you're into an enhanced "sense of achievement"? -try winning something on Charlton Athletics budget rather than chucking money at problems positions until the problem's solved.

[Soper]

I didn't know Linfield were the most profitable club in Europe??!

[Steve Bruce]

All these references to 'Our' & 'We' in relation to Manchester United???
Whatever happened to you being a Linfield supporter?

I support both. Linfield first, United second. But have big passion for both. Something wrong with that?:rolleyes:

[Steve Bruce]

I didn't know Linfield were the most profitable club in Europe??!

Mate, your not really that funny, so why not just give it up;)

[Steve Bruce]

Which came first now Steve ...chicken or egg? So far as I recall the sugar daddies only emerged as a consequence of one teams disproportionate dominance.
I fail to see the material difference between funding player purchases through share issues rather than out of the pocket of a single benefactor at any rate.
There's nothing "more honourable" about the manner in which Man U finance their dealings.

:D Oh will you squat and push it ffs. D'ya know what'd give you a real buzz if you're into an enhanced "sense of achievement"? -try winning something on Charlton Athletics budget rather than chucking money at problems positions until the problem's solved.

Jealously will get you no where:cool:

[galwayhoop]

I fail to see the material difference between funding player purchases through share issues rather than out of the pocket of a single benefactor at any rate.

agree.

it's a bit like buying your house outright with cash you have saved (or been given) or, in the much more common scenario when you get a mortgage through your bank and then pay them back! you get the house all the same and there is no need for the moral high ground.

[jebus]

D'ya know what'd give you a real buzz if you're into an enhanced "sense of achievement"? -try winning something on Charlton Athletics budget rather than chucking money at problems positions until the problem's solved.

Doesn't that point deserve more than a smart remark Steve Bruce? United fans always seem to clam up on mentioning their wage and transfer budgets

[osarusan]

But to be fair, Man United earn part of that money by exploiting foolish consumers, especially in Asia, as skillfully as any other club. It is hardly admirable.

This was my original post.



How do we exploit cunsumers.

If you make a statement like that you have to show the facts to back them up.

Man. United and other clubs exploit (or perhaps that should be "take advantage of") them by producing a vast array of merchandise which the club know they will buy, including way too many club shirts. You know they will buy it because SKY sports and your own clubs' TV channels have made them very popular in Asia. This popularity is cemented by pre-season tours to Asia.


I love this term foolish consumer, it implies that somehow you are knowing and these people are less educated or more ignorant than you. If someone wants to buy a jersey let them its their own free will.

I never said that they are less educated or more ignorant, but I stand by the statement that a teenager in Asia wearing his Man. United shirt, or Chelsea etc, is being foolish, and has reached this level of support at least partly through very persuasive mediums, some of which I've mentioned above.

It is certainly their right to spend their money on what they want, as it is my right to say that they are being exploited for financial reasons.

[Steve Bruce]

Doesn't that point deserve more than a smart remark Steve Bruce? United fans always seem to clam up on mentioning their wage and transfer budgets

I've no shame to say Man Utd have a bigger wage and transfer bill. We also have a bigger support, sell more merchandise and are a global brand.

To stay a global brand you have to be successful and to be successful you have to spend some of the money generated. But United earned there place as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

I have great respect for what Curbs did with a small budget at Charlton. But unfortunately for them, they have a small team and are a no name team in global terms. They will never win the league because they do not have the stature to do it. The only way they will get to win the league is if a sugar daddy takes them over.

A bit like Chelsea.

[Steve Bruce]

This was my original post.




Man. United and other clubs exploit (or perhaps that should be "take advantage of") them by producing a vast array of merchandise which the club know they will buy, including way too many club shirts. You know they will buy it because SKY sports and your own clubs' TV channels have made them very popular in Asia. This popularity is cemented by pre-season tours to Asia.



I never said that they are less educated or more ignorant, but I stand by the statement that a teenager in Asia wearing his Man. United shirt, or Chelsea etc, is being foolish, and has reached this level of support at least partly through very persuasive mediums, some of which I've mentioned above.

It is certainly their right to spend their money on what they want, as it is my right to say that they are being exploited for financial reasons.

Business is business. Every club does it and if the punters are willing to shell out for new merchandise why not supply them with it?

[osarusan]

Business is business.

Is that your way of saying you don't have any problems with the way your club merchandises and promotes its image worlwide?


Every club does it

I said that at the start. United do it better than most.


if the punters are willing to shell out for new merchandise why not supply them with it?

Are you saying that United only started putting out so many shirts and other merchandise because they wanted to satisfy the needs of their fans? How humane of them.

I've been in Japan 6 years, and in that time have seen United's, Aresenal's, and most recently Chelsea's TV stations come on J-Sky sports, and I know the public wasnt begging for them to be broadcast here.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I've no shame to say Man Utd have a bigger wage and transfer bill. We also have a bigger support, sell more merchandise and are a global brand.

To stay a global brand you have to be successful and to be successful you have to spend some of the money generated. But United earned there place as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

I have great respect for what Curbs did with a small budget at Charlton. But unfortunately for them, they have a small team and are a no name team in global terms. They will never win the league because they do not have the stature to do it. The only way they will get to win the league is if a sugar daddy takes them over.

A bit like Chelsea.

Another excercise in attempting to bolt the gate or seal the hatch behind oneself to stop others following on.

If some vulgarly wealthy businessman buys Charlton tomorrow (I'm not a Charlton supporter btw ...just took them for example) and pumps millions upon millions into them to get them into contention for titles -their fans will rightly roll their eyes and sing "what's the score" at Ferguson when he get's ****y-eyed about these sugar daddies warping his percieved footballing realities.
But this is of course the man who, in the naiesence of the Champions League when people were speculating on the possibility of a breakaway "European Super League", wanted unrelegatable Permanent Member Status if you don't mind -for his particular outfit and a handful more from around Europe -(some of whom have since had to be relegated from their domestic leagues for improprieties).

It's free world, and as you say business is business. Business money WILL flow into places where there is percieved opportunity to gain market share and grow.

Meant to ask btw -when you say "United earned their place as one of the biggest clubs in the world" -what's your "year dot", your cut off point by which time such "stature" has to be "earned"? I needn't remind you Man U went 20 odd years without a title while still being one of the best resourced teams in the game.

[Steve Bruce]

Is that your way of saying you don't have any problems with the way your club merchandises and promotes its image worlwide?

I have no problems with the way manchester united merchandises and promotes it's image around the world, a lot of people obviously don't because we attract many many more supporters around the world every year

I said that at the start. United do it better than most.

and this is a bad point about united? Surely we should be commended for our marketing brilliance rather than being lambasted for being better than everyone else?

Are you saying that United only started putting out so many shirts and other merchandise because they wanted to satisfy the needs of their fans? How humane of them.

If people didn't want them, they wouldn't buy them

I've been in Japan 6 years, and in that time have seen United's, Aresenal's, and most recently Chelsea's TV stations come on J-Sky sports, and I know the public wasnt begging for them to be broadcast here.
If the people don't want them, don't buy them and they will go away


Answers in bold

[Steve Bruce]

Another excercise in attempting to bolt the gate or seal the hatch behind oneself to stop others following on.

If some vulgarly wealthy businessman buys Charlton tomorrow (I'm not a Charlton supporter btw ...just took them for example) and pumps millions upon millions into them to get them into contention for titles -their fans will rightly roll their eyes and sing "what's the score" at Ferguson when he get's ****y-eyed about these sugar daddies warping his percieved footballing realities.

As United proved this season, no matter how much teams spend, it might take a couple of seasons but United will build a team of hungry young men to take the title back.

But this is of course the man who, in the naiesence of the Champions League when people were speculating on the possibility of a breakaway "European Super League", wanted unrelegatable Permanent Member Status if you don't mind -for his particular outfit and a handful more from around Europe -(some of whom have since had to be relegated from their domestic leagues for improprieties).

I would like to see sources about this and prefarebly a full background of this European Super League your talking about, before I debate about it

It's free world, and as you say business is business. Business money WILL flow into places where there is percieved opportunity to gain market share and grow.

That is true, that isn't my arguement. I'm saying Manchester United gains success within the funds we generate ourselves as a club.

Meant to ask btw -when you say "United earned their place as one of the biggest clubs in the world" -what's your "year dot", your cut off point by which time such "stature" has to be "earned"? I needn't remind you Man U went 20 odd years without a title while still being one of the best resourced teams in the game.

There is no year dot. Manchester United has been a massive club with great stature from the Busby era. We went through many years of underachievement, but thankfully we got out of it.

If Chelsea can make themselves self-sufficient and build a bigger stadium and fill it, as well as keep on being successful for a time, then you can say they have acheived the status as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

At the moment they lag well behind Real Madrid, Man Utd, Barcelona, AC Milan, Juventus, Liverpool etc etc In stature.



Replies in bold.

[jebus]

How do you not know about the proposed European SuperLeague, isn't that what G14 was set up for? To ensure that they control club football in Europe?

[osarusan]

Answers in bold

nice one. be lazy about the quoting so i have to do all the work to quote you.:Dshrewd.

But I couldnt be bothered. If your view on merchandising boils down to the idea that "If they didnt want them, they wouldnt buy them" shows either that you couldnt be bothered giving a real answer, or you dont know what you are talking about as to how they merchandise in Asia.

Given that you live on the island of Ireland, and support an Irish League club, I thought you would be more aware of the marketing which happens on a daily basis, deisgned to gain new fans for English clubs. It has been a blight on eL for quite a while, and I cant imagine the north being so much different. What happens in Japan is a more concentrated version. It needs to be, as the clubs cant play on the flimsy notions of loyalty created by past players for the clubs.

I have seen, first hand, Premiership clubs, through admittedly excellent marketing, creae a completely fabricated fanbase here in Japan. Saturation of TV channels, Club magazines, a diet of Premiership football, preseason tours - have all combined to create a set of fans for, in my opinion, no other reason to make extra money. (Celtic have joined the market recently on the back of Nakamura.) If you think that Man United, among other clubs, have been chosen for support by Asian fans on the other side of the world without any courting on their part, you are deluded.

I can say that in Chelsea's case, supply and advertising created demand, not the other way around, and people who have been here longer than I, including one United fan, tell me it was the same with United when they started their period of success in the 90's.

Now, I dont see anything admirable or sporting about that. So, for doing it better than everybody else, and indeed for doing it at all, they, and the other clubs, in my opinion, should be lambasted.

[galwayhoop]

what makes man utd supporters feel they can take a moral high ground as opposed to, say, chelsea? "we didn't buy the league" etc etc is the common tripe put out.

exactly how many of the regulars on the most recent man united championship winning team were brought through the ranks:
van der sar: No
Evra: No
Vidic: No
Ferdinand: No
Neville: Yes*
Ronaldo: No
Carrick: No
Scholes: Yes*
Giggs: Yes*
Rooney: No
Saha: No

thats 3 from what i would consider their first choice 11 and all three came through in the early 90's and are approaching the end of their careers so it's hardly a breading ground for young home grown talent now is it!

you could argue that the above is not the first choice 11 but it doesn't get much better if you go into the rest of the regular squad of 2006/07:
smith, solksjaer, larsson, park, silvestre, heinze - all bought in.
even kieran richardson went through the west ham academy before joining man utd as a reserve aged 17 - again not home grown.
so we are left with wes brown, o'shea (irish) & fletcher (scottish) would be regarded as being 'home grown' as they came through their academy but in fairness these 3 are hardly world beaters now are they? will any of these 3 even make a long-term contribution to the first team - i doubt it.



the other gripe united supporters have is about 'sugar daddys'.

well united are experts at exploiting worldwide 'markets' (in turn turning these 'supporters' away from their own local leagues) and promoting the 'global brand' of manchester united.
(words above in italics are often heard in man utd press releases and statements.)

while chelsea have received large amounts of money from abramovich and are now trying to promote their club in a similar way to united.

is their really a major difference??? one gets the money from a foreign man and the other gets money from many foreign men (irish included).

those who harp on about man utd as some sort of good guy compared to the money bags of chelsea trying to replace good hard graft and team building with 'bought in talent'' are pure jokers!! how quickly ye must forget the purchases of:

van nistelrooy & veron
bought for about £45 million when NO other club in the league could even dream of spending that much!!! was that not trying to buy the league??

or more recently:
ferdinand
carrick
rooney
almost £60m on these 3.

and since the end of last season (amm .... last month!)
hargreaves
nani &
anderson
adding another what £50m or so??

and thats not even mentioning the duds who have been bought in for between £5 and £10 million each and proved to be useless. i'm talking about gems such as Eric Djemba-Djemba & Massimo Tiabi (sp?). How many goalkeepers have man utd bought in the last 8 or 9 years? and how many midfielders have come and gone in the last 5 or 6 years?

Bottom line is Man Utd have a very poor recent record at developing their own talent and buy more players than most.

Pot calling the kettle bl..... Ohh i forgot ... sure United have history so that makes everything else irrelevant :rolleyes:

[DmanDmythDledge]

Any club would have to buy to maintain success.

The difference between United and Chelsea is that Chelsea would have never won the league without Abromovich.

And Osarusan every team needs to have 3 kits now. There are always going to be people who would want to buy any of the kits. That's not exploiting, it's giving the customers want they want.

[4tothefloor]

Can I also say Liverpool has spent nearly (4Million difference) the same amount of money as Man Utd in the last 10 years. United spend there money on 2 or 3 players though but Liverpool spend it on 8 players.

We buy quality not quantity. :)

Provide a source for that please........

[dcfcsteve]

And Osarusan every team needs to have 3 kits now. There are always going to be people who would want to buy any of the kits. That's not exploiting, it's giving the customers want they want.

But there will also be people who would buy 365 kits if their team brought one out every single day of the year. Knowing that, and then producing kit to take advantage of it would surely be exploitation.

[DmanDmythDledge]

But there will also be people who would buy 365 kits if their team brought one out every single day of the year. Knowing that, and then producing kit to take advantage of it would surely be exploitation.
:confused:And that proves...? Teams need 3 kits, teams produce 3 kits for sale because there will be demand for each kit. The example you gave is purely hypothetical, will never happen and different from what is happening.

[osarusan]

And Osarusan every team needs to have 3 kits now. There are always going to be people who would want to buy any of the kits. That's not exploiting, it's giving the customers want they want.

But my point is that the "customers" (interesting choice of word) only wanted to buy them after they were produced. I can't remember any fans lamenting the fact that they only had 2 shirts, and wanted more to be produced so they could buy the new shirts also.

DCFCSteve's exzmple of 365 shirts is perhaps an exaggeration, but if United (or Arsenal, Chelsea etc, my point is not confined to United) produced another shirt each year, people would buy it. There would be no need for that new shirt, and now I dont see any fans voicing a wish to buy a new shirt, but some would buy it if it were produced. That is not giving the fans what they want, it is taking advantage of them.

[galwayhoop]

Any club would have to buy to maintain success..
Agreed


The difference between United and Chelsea is that Chelsea would have never won the league without Abromovich..
Perhaps. But United would not have been able to raise the finances which they depend on without all of their imported/overseas 'fans' - many of whom have been directly targeted by the marketing men at old trafford.

The notion that Man United (or most other top teams) actually produce their own players is nonsence. Perhaps this was true a decade ago but not anymore.

The fact is Chelsea get their money from a rich Russian while United get millions and millions from Asia, plikes from (insert any Irish county here) who swear undying loyalty (and hatred of Scousers :confused:) and fair-weathers throughout Britain.

In my eyes there is no moral high ground for either.

[Steve Bruce]

Provide a source for that please........

It's research I did in February. If I can dig it up again I will. Man Utd bought half the amount of players Liverpool have done in the last 10 years(liverpool has bought 70 odd players).

It wouldn't be right to include Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson yet as that is this transfer window as Liverpool haven't done any shopping yet. At the end of the Transfer window it would be fairer to give out the transfer budget.

If your happy to accept my findings from before this transfer window, I'll duly oblige with re-researching it for you?

This is a rough idea. The total of transfers made have sales deducted from it.

Chelsea has spent in excess of 220million(as as I remember)
United has spent 115million
Liverpool 111m
Newcastle 105m
Arsenal 40 something million.

Also as part of the research I done a thing about success per £.

So if I can't find it(it's lieing about some where) I'll redo it, but it'll take a day or two to do.

[Steve Bruce]

Agreed


Perhaps. But United would not have been able to raise the finances which they depend on without all of their imported/overseas 'fans' - many of whom have been directly targeted by the marketing men at old trafford.

The notion that Man United (or most other top teams) actually produce their own players is nonsence. Perhaps this was true a decade ago but not anymore.

The fact is Chelsea get their money from a rich Russian while United get millions and millions from Asia, plikes from (insert any Irish county here) who swear undying loyalty (and hatred of Scousers :confused:) and fair-weathers throughout Britain.

In my eyes there is no moral high ground for either.


Surely Man Utd going out to attract new fans, isn't a bad thing?

The problem with Irish football both North and South of the border is, we don't go out courting new fans. If we could football on this island would be of a far higher calibre and we would be regulary selling players for a million+

[DmanDmythDledge]

But my point is that the "customers" (interesting choice of word) only wanted to buy them after they were produced. I can't remember any fans lamenting the fact that they only had 2 shirts, and wanted more to be produced so they could buy the new shirts also.
That's not the case at all. Certain fans will want to have all 3 jerseys, some fans may only want the third jersey but the demand is there for the jersey to be bought. It's natural that any team, not just United, would (and have) make all the kits they wear available for sale.


DCFCSteve's exzmple of 365 shirts is perhaps an exaggeration, but if United (or Arsenal, Chelsea etc, my point is not confined to United) produced another shirt each year, people would buy it. There would be no need for that new shirt, and now I dont see any fans voicing a wish to buy a new shirt, but some would buy it if it were produced. That is not giving the fans what they want, it is taking advantage of them.
Teams produce a new kit every 2 years for as long as I can remember (is this a rule btw?). There would be uproar from the fans if it didn't go on sale. Giving the "customers" what they want is not exploitation.

[Lionel Ritchie]

That's not the case at all. Certain fans will want to have all 3 jerseys, some fans may only want the third jersey but the demand is there for the jersey to be bought. It's natural that any team, not just United, would (and have) make all the kits they wear available for sale.


Teams produce a new kit every 2 years for as long as I can remember (is this a rule btw?). There would be uproar from the fans if it didn't go on sale. Giving the "customers" what they want is not exploitation.

I'm fairly sure Man U introduce new shirts more frequently than every two years. I also recall there having been no small amount of uproar a few seasons back when they'd three different AWAY shirts and were wearing a different home shirt for the CL. Pester power afflicted Parents groups in particular were complaining that this was exploitative.

[DmanDmythDledge]

I'm fairly sure Man U introduce new shirts more frequently than every two years.
Yeah forgot to mention that it would be a new home jersey 1 year, new away the next and so forth.

[galwayhoop]

Surely Man Utd going out to attract new fans, isn't a bad thing?

The problem with Irish football both North and South of the border is, we don't go out courting new fans. If we could football on this island would be of a far higher calibre and we would be regulary selling players for a million+

Absolutely nothing wrong with attracting new supporters at all. However, most supporters who were about before the boom of Sky TV feel that the regular 'Joe Soap' has been replaced at games by the 'Day-tripper'. Again theres nothing inherently wrong with this but it irks me when Man Utd supporters claim that in some way the club is not as 'plastic'* as others, Chelsea being a main example.

I recently read a superb article in the London Telegraph (I think it was the Telegraph anyway - was in an airport waiting for a delayed flight!!) which illustrated how the recent Champions League final magnified the class difference in football supporters - whereby thousands and thousands of people who would class themselves as 'real' fans were left standing outside the ground while those on extremely overpriced package deals and coporate jollies were inside watching the game. It's synopsis was that the situation is going to get steadly worse for the so-called 'real' / joe soap / working-class supporter as more and more tickets go to corporate and package supporters.

Now i am fully aware that the Champions League did not involve Man Utd but the atricle was more of a general overview of top class football and used the Champions League to drive home the point as it was possibly the clearest example of what is happening in football today especially at successiful Premiership football clubs. The game served as a metephor of sorts whereby the problem of not being able to get in may not be a lack of tickets but moreso an inability to afford to buy a ticket/s. Lets be fair here, what working-class person can afford to bring their 2 sons to support their favourite Premiership club every second week. Most adults who attend football matches regularly will be able to remember their father bringing them to games when they were young children and indeed as someone stated previously on another thread it is a right of passage of sorts. The English game (at the top level especially) may be entering an eliteist phase which it may struggle to come out of.

Can you imagine having grown up and not going to football games regularly? Would you be as interested in the game today if that was the case?

I suppose my main point is that i don't buy into the whole looking down the nose at Chelsea by so-called real fans, as all of the top Premiership clubs are similarily more and more detached from the man on the street. It is an indictment of the game at the highest level more than a swipe at Man Utd, Liverpool or Arsenal supporters or indeed the clubs themselves.

Nowadays all that really matters to the clubs is the balance sheet, gross margins and the bottom line. Their boards interest in success on the pitch directly transfers to the financial rewards off it and the TV money, sponsorship and prize money to be gleaned as a result.

As has been said many time before these top clubs are BUSINESSES and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Although if you spin it on it's head are Abramovich and the other Sugar Daddys not actually more closely aligned to the mentality of the 'REAL' fan in that they are actually much more interested in winning trophies than balancing the books? Just a thought.

:ball:

*for want of a better word

[dcfcsteve]

:confused:And that proves...? Teams need 3 kits, teams produce 3 kits for sale because there will be demand for each kit. The example you gave is purely hypothetical, will never happen and different from what is happening.

Why does a team need 3 kits ? Irish teams manage perfectly well with 2, for example.....

And does any team really need 4, a la Man united ? If 4, then why not 5. Or 6. Or 7....

[dcfcsteve]

Teams produce a new kit every 2 years for as long as I can remember (is this a rule btw?). There would be uproar from the fans if it didn't go on sale. Giving the "customers" what they want is not exploitation.

Showing your age here DM ! :D I can remember clearly when English teams had new kit each and every year, and it really wasn't that long ago.

I don't think the 2 year thing is an actual rule - more a gentleman's agreement, as the club's were getting slaughtered on the PR front over it all.

The big problem with producing multiple kits is that a lot of the demand to have the latest one comes from young kids, who don't care and don't have to worry about the cost or where the money is coming from. It's precisely because of that sort of consumer pressure that the 2 year turn-around 'rule' was introduced in the first place...

[DmanDmythDledge]

Why does a team need 3 kits ?
If their away kit clashes with the oppostion's home jersey, Sheff Utd vs Man Utd last season to give one example.

[dcfcsteve]

If their away kit clashes with the oppostion's home jersey, Sheff Utd vs Man Utd last season to give one example.

In which case, the rule should be that away kits are designed so as not to create such a clash - rather than designed purely to generate money from fans.

Shels and Derry City have been playing each other for 22 years with no such clash. Why is it beyond reason for Man U and Sheffield United to be able to manage to do the same? Oh I forgot - I'm asking a footballing question with regards what is fundamentally a merchandising issue...... :eek:

[osarusan]

If their away kit clashes with the oppostion's home jersey, Sheff Utd vs Man Utd last season to give one example.

They (the away team) could just wear their home shirt.