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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14/06/2007, 11:59 AM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

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:
14/06/2007, 1:15 PM
galwayhoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

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.
14/06/2007, 1:30 PM
jebus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

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
14/06/2007, 1:36 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

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.
14/06/2007, 1:47 PM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebus

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.
14/06/2007, 1:48 PM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

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?
14/06/2007, 2:00 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

Every club does it

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

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.
14/06/2007, 2:10 PM
Lionel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

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.
14/06/2007, 2:27 PM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

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
14/06/2007, 2:34 PM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

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.
14/06/2007, 3:44 PM
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?
14/06/2007, 4:05 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

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.
14/06/2007, 11:39 PM
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:
14/06/2007, 11:58 PM
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.
15/06/2007, 1:14 AM
4tothefloor

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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. :)

Provide a source for that please........
15/06/2007, 1:18 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

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.
15/06/2007, 1:53 AM
DmanDmythDledge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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.
15/06/2007, 2:15 AM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

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.
15/06/2007, 10:13 AM
galwayhoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

Any club would have to buy to maintain success..

Agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

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.
15/06/2007, 10:52 AM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4tothefloor

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page