Excellent post mate.Never put it past them.
Find this from Redcafe of all places, thought I would get there educated views
For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.
In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.
So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.
* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.
EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive
Seems very impartial and probably not a United fan, but it is an interesting point that this has created competition that has increased the value of the TV deal. The Aguerooo moment is pure box office.
The rest is the usual drival that considers FFP to be a joke because City are doing well. The whole concept of sponsors etc. it is as if we are still the same club before the takeover just with extra players, little or no credit is ever mentioned that sponsors might what to be associated with a club that is probably the most watched by neutrals, on TV a lot in Champions League. No all of our market value should be similar to that of Everton/ Newcastle and anything above that is just a dodgy deal.
I always wonder are PSG good for us or bad, they don't seem to care to the same extent (they still have this huge sponsorship tourism deal which gives £200 million pound, although book value was reduced to £100 million), spend HUGE sums and don't care who they upset. We on the otherhand seem to have invested in infrastructure, our highest transfer fee is £55 million and we have not took anyone away from the European elite. However it is always oil clubs PSG and City when FFP is mentioned.
With a new estimated value of almost £6 billion, the English Premier League football rights are some of the most expensive in the world.
A new report by Ampere Analysis has valued the UK rights between £5.5 billion and £5.9 billion for domestic three-year ‘live’ television rights.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/premier-league-tv-rights-estimated-11899415
Remember that the conflict here really is one of business and not sports. What we have is a kartell of companies who had carved the market up between them. In recent years new competition has shown up and taken part of the market away from them, and they don't like it at all, so they try to manipulate the rules governing the market in order to prevent competition. For the Premier League essentially it is the American owners of what used to be the biggest businesses playing dirty to prevent competition, and thus remain in the nice spot of having companies producing a guaranteed yearly profit.Excellent post mate.
You have clubs like Bayern winning the league 99 times out of 100 and then UEFA has the temerity to suggest that new money coming into football is damaging competition????! You really could not make it up.
Of course. It's obvious and plain to see.Remember that the conflict here really is one of business and not sports. What we have is a kartell of companies who had carved the market up between them. In recent years new competition has shown up and taken part of the market away from them, and they don't like it at all, so they try to manipulate the rules governing the market in order to prevent competition. For the Premier League essentially it is the American owners of what used to be the biggest businesses playing dirty to prevent competition, and thus remain in the nice spot of having companies producing a guaranteed yearly profit.
Never put it past them.
Find this from Redcafe of all places, thought I would get there educated views
For all the sugar money in football (that mostly means in England with Chelsea and City) have destroyed football and make it less competitive, I have some stats for you.
In the 11 golden years of EPL when there were not sugar daddies *, only 3 clubs won the league with United winning 8 out of 11 titles (72%). In the next 14 years when the sugar daddy money came, 5 clubs won the league, with United and Chelsea winning it 5 times (36%). So, two most successful clubs in this non-competitive era together win as much as the most successful club in that mythical competitive era.
So, let's be fair. You're either total hypocrites who don't care about competition and just want United to monopolise trophies, or you are mistaking the pre-Abramovich era with pre-EPL year. Because the league before Abramovich was as competitive as Bundesliga is nowadays.
* A lot of people would argue that Blackburn was actually the original sugar daddy club, so if it wasn't for them United would have won 9/11 titles (82%). Since Abramovich, if you don't count Chelsea/City titles, we would have likely won 8/14 titles, all of them in a row. That is something that would make Bayern and Celtics proud.
EPL in particular has benefitted from outside money, and that is one of the reasons why the league is so good and so competitive
Seems very impartial and probably not a United fan, but it is an interesting point that this has created competition that has increased the value of the TV deal. The Aguerooo moment is pure box office.
The rest is the usual drival that considers FFP to be a joke because City are doing well. The whole concept of sponsors etc. it is as if we are still the same club before the takeover just with extra players, little or no credit is ever mentioned that sponsors might what to be associated with a club that is probably the most watched by neutrals, on TV a lot in Champions League. No all of our market value should be similar to that of Everton/ Newcastle and anything above that is just a dodgy deal.
I always wonder are PSG good for us or bad, they don't seem to care to the same extent (they still have this huge sponsorship tourism deal which gives £200 million pound, although book value was reduced to £100 million), spend HUGE sums and don't care who they upset. We on the otherhand seem to have invested in infrastructure, our highest transfer fee is £55 million and we have not took anyone away from the European elite. However it is always oil clubs PSG and City when FFP is mentioned.
but the one thing united and the so called power clubs in europe did not see coming was sheikh mansour and his investment and vision for manchester city.
It goes back further actually. 10 years before the PL came along there was a major change in the way ticket money was shared between the clubs. Essentially, prior to 1981 the home club would give 25% of the gate to the away club & keep 75% themselves. So smaller clubs would benefit financially from the higher crowds at clubs like Liverpool, the rags, etc.Thanks for that. Saves me having to conduct the research but it confirms what I've always suspected. It also illustrates that the Pisscan wasn't the brilliant manager he was held up to be.
It goes back further actually. 10 years before the PL came along there was a major change in the way ticket money was shared between the clubs. Essentially, prior to 1981 the home club would give 25% of the gate to the away club & keep 75% themselves. So smaller clubs would benefit financially from the higher crowds at clubs like Liverpool, the rags, etc.
From 1981, that was stopped after the usual suspects (Rags, Liverpool, Arsenal plus Spurs & Everton) threatened a breakaway league. As ticket money was virtually the sole source of revenue for all clubs in those days this had a huge impact on the finances of big and small clubs, giving the former more money and the latter a lot less. Villa won the league in 1981 but after that it was Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, with just Leeds breaking the cartel in 1992 (although they'd be classed as a "big" club in terms of attendances). Then the PL came along & that was dominated by United & Arsenal, with Blackburn (funded by Jack Walker), Chelsea (Abramovich), us (Sheikh Mansour) and of course Leicester.
And am I right in thinking that the two games with the highest viewing figures in PL history involved the rags ? Presumably they were their games against Liverpool.