the money stick we get beaten by

[Ray78]

Re: Success bought not earnt

Don't know, but I reckon if you compared Ferguson's transfer spending in current terms to ours it would be similar if not more

They hold the record for the no. of times a club has broken the British Transfer record, and when Ferguson did that in his early days he was spending £2.2m on Garry Pallister etc so you can't measure the figures in absolute terms. You have to allow for transfer inflation.

I guess that is the case and you cannot get a completely accurate comparison but still they did splash the cash like we had to do.

you can, just compare it to what the other clubs in the league were spending then and now, lots of work, but I'm sure someone sad like ed(case) the ffp expert has done the leg work already, you know how to use google.

I will give you the answer next Christmas ;).

 

[johnmc]

Re: Success bought not earnt

Think you are wrong there pal. There is an advert for a Chinese or Japanese cola that we have been involved in that's very similar to the above.

Why not anyway. If we can use our brand to maximise our income we would be stupid not to in my opinion.

Would you think less of the club if they sent Sergio for a half hour photo shoot to appear on crisps in china if it meant £1m in our coffers? Who wins here?

Est Cola from Thailand I seem to recall.

Also a deal with Daihatsu.

So we have one drinks sponsor and one car sponsor. And neither appear on the OS on that list. And let's be honest, it's hardly comparable with United's OS list.

As I've stated, and I stand by this. If City wanted more sponsors they could have easily signed them. Not only from the far east, but from the middle east as well. Tom Glick could have signed up numerous sponsors by now, but the club won't sign low profile, quick deal sponsors, en masse.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

But you have been proven wrong in that they have already done this? We were happy to do a crappy cola advert so why wouldn't we accept them as "partners" whatever that fucking means for a bit more money if they offered that.

You can't say it ok because our list is no where near the rags list where in reality we probably wish it was. It money into the club. You can't tell me we are that bothered about the ethics of companies sponsoring us when we have nike on our table. The rags are a big commercial draw right now and I have no doubt that we would love their commercial Income.

 

[jrb]

Re: Success bought not earnt

Est Cola from Thailand I seem to recall.

Also a deal with Daihatsu.

So we have one drinks sponsor and one car sponsor. And neither appear on the OS on that list. And let's be honest, it's hardly comparable with United's OS list.

As I've stated, and I stand by this. If City wanted more sponsors they could have easily signed them. Not only from the far east, but from the middle east as well. Tom Glick could have signed up numerous sponsors by now, but the club won't sign low profile, quick deal sponsors, en masse.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

But you have been proven wrong in that they have already done this? We were happy to do a crappy cola advert so why wouldn't we accept them as "partners" whatever that fucking means for a bit more money if they offered that.

You can't say it ok because our list is no where near the rags list where in reality we probably wish it was. It money into the club. You can't tell me we are that bothered about the ethics of companies sponsoring us when we have nike on our table. The rags are a big commercial draw right now and I have no doubt that we would love their commercial Income.

FFS! Here we go!(trench warfare)

Proven wrong? Because we've signed 1 soft drinks deal and a 1 car deal. Go and compare that to what United have signed, regardless.

If the club had wanted to sign more of those kind of deals(Mr Potato, etc), it would have done it by now. It hasn't because it doesn't want to. There are no shortage of sponsors willing to have their brand associated with City, and to pay for that privilege.

You know as well as I do that the club takes a pragmatic approach about everything it does. That includes signing sponsorship deals. It doesn't have, and never has had a pepper gun approach. Everything is carefully thought through and then acted upon.

Let's leave it at this, otherwise I'll be here all night and tomorrow. Let's see who City sign up with in the coming months and year ahead. If they sign up with the likes of Mr Potato, cleaning companies, noodle partners, paint partners, and the like, then I'll come on here and admit I was wrong. I'll give you the credit you deserve for calling it right. If they go down a different route, then I'll expect likewise from you.

Over to you Mr Glick. :-)

 

[johnmc]

Re: Success bought not earnt

So we have one drinks sponsor and one car sponsor. And neither appear on the OS on that list. And let's be honest, it's hardly comparable with United's OS list.

As I've stated, and I stand by this. If City wanted more sponsors they could have easily signed them. Not only from the far east, but from the middle east as well. Tom Glick could have signed up numerous sponsors by now, but the club won't sign low profile, quick deal sponsors, en masse.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

But you have been proven wrong in that they have already done this? We were happy to do a crappy cola advert so why wouldn't we accept them as "partners" whatever that fucking means for a bit more money if they offered that.

You can't say it ok because our list is no where near the rags list where in reality we probably wish it was. It money into the club. You can't tell me we are that bothered about the ethics of companies sponsoring us when we have nike on our table. The rags are a big commercial draw right now and I have no doubt that we would love their commercial Income.

FFS! Here we go!(trench warfare)

Proven wrong? Because we've signed 1 soft drinks deal and a 1 car deal. Go and compare that to what United have signed, regardless.

If the club had wanted to sign more of those kind of deals(Mr Potato, etc), it would have done it by now. It hasn't because it doesn't want to. There are no shortage of sponsors willing to have their brand associated with City, and to pay for that privilege.

You know as well as I do that the club takes a pragmatic approach about everything it does. That includes signing sponsorship deals. It doesn't have, and never has had a pepper gun approach. Everything is carefully thought through and then acted upon.

Let's leave it at this, otherwise I'll be here all night and tomorrow. Let's see who City sign up with in the coming months and year ahead. If they sign up with the likes of Mr Potato, cleaning companies, noodle partners, paint partners, and the like, then I'll come on here and admit I was wrong. I'll give you the credit you deserve for calling it right. If they go down a different route, then I'll expect likewise.

Over to you Mr Glick. :-)

I can't really reason with you. So city have only signed one cola/car/crisp/insurance/airline deal whereas the rags have signed numerous so that's a sign that we are pragmatic and could easily get as many as the rags but don't want to in your eyes. Why sign one at all then? If we hadn't signed any such deals I could understand where you are coming from. But as we have signed a couple I'd say we would sign more if approached. I will agree that we maybe need approaching rather than us approach the companies which the rags are probably doing. But in these days of ffp we could well be approaching companies. And why not.

Don't be so naive. If a company was willing to pay us to be their official paint partner we would likely take it if it was an above board company and the offer was sufficient to make it worthwhile.

 

[TCIB]

Re: Success bought not earnt

You 2 are gonna create a black hole at this rate of descension into nothingness.

Let us all agree the rags look daft in that pic.

 

[Shirley]

Re: Success bought not earnt

This subject usually arises when we stuff the rags or the gooners, they have become very bitter and litter the Internet with their childish comments, ironically the majority from their global fan base.

 

[King Of All Geordies]

Re: Success bought not earnt

Tell the Rag that we don't give a shit. We operate within the rules that exist, like they do. They should put up or shut up. The Sheiks money has been legitimately earned. We're putting new money into football. The rag leaches have only ever took money out.

 

[cucumberman]

Re: Success bought not earnt

Here's everything you need:

1) In 1931 they were saved from going out of business by a wealthy local man called James Gibson. He not only recruited Busby but paid for Old Trafford to be rebuilt after the war out of his own pocket.

2) In 1981 they, along with Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal & Spurs blackmailed the Football League into stopping the sharing of gate receipts with visiting clubs, by threatening to set-up a breakaway league.

3) In 1992, the same clubs stuck two fingers up at the Football League by negotiating the set-up of the Premier League. That meant all TV money went to the PL rather than the 50% they previously got, with the rest being shared across the other three divisions.

4) As a founder member of the G14, they were involved in forcing UEFA to pay them for players on international duty, which obviously benefitted the big clubs. Once again, using a tactic from 1981, they threatened a breakaway European Super League.

5) The G14 pushed for more and more money from UEFA for the Champions League, including the infamous second group stage. This was to ensure that the big clubs got more gate receipts from guaranteed games. The TV companies however got them to drop it as it was a tV turn-off.

6) They've forced up ticket prices well beyond the rate of inflation. They now pull in about £4m per game, far more than anyone else (bar Arsenal)

7) They've prostituted themselves to every company possible, particularly in the Far East, who'll pay them a few million quid. They have an "Official Noodle Partner" and an "Official Savoury SnacPartner" (to name but two) who are companies no one in Gorse Hill has ever heard of.

8) Their "Official Airline Partner" doesn't fly into or out of Manchester.

Additionally, in 1902 with the club on the verge of bankruptcy and having
already been served a winding up order, a we ahalthy businessman by the name of John Henry Davies and three other investors saved the club. Undoubtedly his wealth paid a part in being able to buy the majority of our 1904 FA Cup winning side (the side that won the rags their first titles), who ironically had to be sold after it was exposed that we'd overpaid players beyond the FA sanctioned £4 per week maximum. John Henry Davies then funded the construction of Old Trafford, which cost a staggering amount of money at the time.

Ah the Moneybags United era.

 

[Ray78]

Re: Success bought not earnt

No team has ever got to the top without spending vast amounts and all those who deny that their team has ever done that are lying through their teeth.

 

[CitizenTID]

Re: Success bought not earnt

Haha nice usage of the meme.

It's pronounced "meme"