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

[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 ) 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.



*for want of a better word

[dcfcsteve]

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 ! 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......

[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.

[DmanDmythDledge]

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.

Then you're asking clubs to change their traditional colours. Not going to happen.

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

Why should the home team play in their away kits just because the away team can't provide a kit that doesn't clash?

[osarusan]

Then you're asking clubs to change their traditional colours. Not going to happen.

To be fair, Man. United's (and most other clubs) away shirts change colour on a regular basis, so there isnt much tradition to the away colours.

Why should the home team play in their away kits just because the away team can't provide a kit that doesn't clash?

Read my post again.

I'm saying that, if the away team's away shirt clashes with the home team's home shirt, then obviously the away team's home shirt will not clash with the home team's home shirt. Both clubs could wear their home shirts. There is no need for a 3rd shirt.

For example, lets say Man. Uniteds away shirt is blue. When United travel to play Chelsea, obviously Uniteds away shirt and Chelsea's home shirt are the same colour. Your solution is to make a reserve shirt. My solution is for United to wear their home (red) shirt, even though it is an away game.

[DmanDmythDledge]

To be fair, Man. United's (and most other clubs) away shirts change colour on a regular basis, so there isnt much tradition to the away colours.

I can't speak for other clubs but United's away kit has not been white twice in the past 90 years.

Read my post again.

I'm saying that, if the away team's away shirt clashes with the home team's home shirt, then obviously the away team's home shirt will not clash with the home team's home shirt. Both clubs could wear their home shirts. There is no need for a 3rd shirt.

For example, lets say Man. Uniteds away shirt is blue. When United travel to play Chelsea, obviously Uniteds away shirt and Chelsea's home shirt are the same colour. Your solution is to make a reserve shirt. My solution is for United to wear their home (red) shirt, even though it is an away game.

Obviously if there's no clash between home jerseys both teams wear home jerseys.

[osarusan]

Obviously if there's no clash between home jerseys both teams wear home jerseys.

So away shirts are used when the colours of both home jerseys clash?

If that is true, when DCFCSteve said this -

Why does a team need 3 kits ?

Why did you say this?

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

If home jerseys clash colours, the away team wears an away shirt, fair enough. But if the home jerseys dont clash, both teams will wear home jerseys.

So why is a 3rd kit needed?

[DmanDmythDledge]

So away shirts are used when the colours of both home jerseys clash?

If that is true, when DCFCSteve said this -

Why does a team need 3 kits ?

Why did you say this?

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

If home jerseys clash colours, the away team wears an away shirt, fair enough. But if the home jerseys dont clash, both teams will wear home jerseys.

So why is a 3rd kit needed?

If the away team's home and away kits clash with the home teams jersey.

[osarusan]

If the away team's home and away kits clash with the home teams jersey.

But given that the home and away shirts are specifically designed to be very different from each other, this doesnt happen.

For this to happen, the home and away shirts would need to be the same colour. They never are. It would defeat the purpose of making an away shirt.

This year, if I remember correctly, United's home shirt was red, and away shirt was blue. Which Premiership club has a home shirt which clashes with both of Uniteds shirts?

[DmanDmythDledge]

But given that the home and away shirts are specifically designed to be very different from each other, this doesnt happen.

For this to happen, the home and away shirts would need to be the same colour. They never are. It would defeat the purpose of making an away shirt.

This year, if I remember correctly, United's home shirt was red, and away shirt was blue. Which Premiership club has a home shirt which clashes with both of Uniteds shirts?

United's away kit was white. Both home and away kits clashed with Sheffield Utd, and will clash with Sunderland next season.

[osarusan]

United's away kit was white. Both home and away kits clashed with Sheffield Utd, and will clash with Sunderland next season.

Fair enough, I thought it was blue, and didnt clash with anybody. Was blue the 3rd kit?

But, do you think that in this situation, the most sensible move is to design a 3rd kit, which will be worn only once next season? More sensible that having the homw team wear their away shirt?

[osarusan]

I can't speak for other clubs but United's away kit has not been white twice in the past 90 years.

Not according to this site.

White away shirt twice (3 times if you count the Gold/White combo) since 2000.

[DmanDmythDledge]

Fair enough, I thought it was blue, and didnt clash with anybody. Was blue the 3rd kit?

But, do you think that in this situation, the most sensible move is to design a 3rd kit, which will be worn only once next season? More sensible that having the home team wear their away shirt?

Blue was the third kit.

Yes but at the same time I wouldn't blame the home team for wanting to wear their home jersey.

Not according to this site.

White away shirt twice (3 times if you count the Gold/White combo) since 2000.

The gold was used as the third kit. I counted 4 white kits, 2 non-white. Still doesn't change my point about the traditional colours.