United thread 2013/14

[jay_mcfc]

Shit analogy & you've missed the point. If someone bought a smaller supermarket group like Booths & poured money into until it rivalled Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys then there could and would be no complaint. Tesco wouldn't be whining that they'd built their business up over many years and Booths had no right to have outside investment. That's business.

The system of revenue sharing prior to 1981 was designed to ensure a relatively level playing field financially. That's what happens in the NFL, NBA and MLB and no one dominates. Only Liverpool & Everton, with the wealth of the Moores family, had a little bit more money in those days. There was very little TV money and therefore not much prize money in those days so gate money was the main revenue stream. So taking money off the smaller clubs was inherently unfair as that tipped the balance financially. Those 5 clubs went on to dominate the landscape as they then had more money (and the clubs with the most money usually win more things) while the other clubs had less. At least we've not 'stolen' money off other clubs to get where we are.

It's not a shit analogy at all and I've not missed the point. No-one can seriously have a problem with clubs wanting to keep the money that they have earned through their own supporters and due to the product that they supply. If you didn't like my previous analogy then perhaps it would be better to use an entertainment one, as that is what football is; it would be like Peter Kay giving half of his ticket sales to Jason Manford.

And comparing it to American sport does you no favours when their entire system is setup up for equality. If you want to follow the American way then there shall be no relegations and the team that finishes last gets to choose the best of the upcoming talent the following year.

 

[Vienna_70]

Shit analogy & you've missed the point. If someone bought a smaller supermarket group like Booths & poured money into until it rivalled Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys then there could and would be no complaint. Tesco wouldn't be whining that they'd built their business up over many years and Booths had no right to have outside investment. That's business.

The system of revenue sharing prior to 1981 was designed to ensure a relatively level playing field financially. That's what happens in the NFL, NBA and MLB and no one dominates. Only Liverpool & Everton, with the wealth of the Moores family, had a little bit more money in those days. There was very little TV money and therefore not much prize money in those days so gate money was the main revenue stream. So taking money off the smaller clubs was inherently unfair as that tipped the balance financially. Those 5 clubs went on to dominate the landscape as they then had more money (and the clubs with the most money usually win more things) while the other clubs had less. At least we've not 'stolen' money off other clubs to get where we are.

It's not a shit analogy at all and I've not missed the point. No-one can seriously have a problem with clubs wanting to keep the money that they have earned through their own supporters and due to the product that they supply. If you didn't like my previous analogy then perhaps it would be better to use an entertainment one, as that is what football is; it would be like Peter Kay giving half of his ticket sales to Jason Manford.

And comparing it to American sport does you no favours when their entire system is setup up for equality. If you want to follow the American way then there shall be no relegations and the team that finishes last gets to choose the best of the upcoming talent the following year.

If they're sharing the same stage, why shouldn't Kay and Manford share the receipt for the show?

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

It's not their view as to its likelihood that marks their bitterness, but rather (although not exclusively) a widespread sense of injustice that it's even possible. They were perfectly content with the way football finances were organised after they'd carved it up to meet their own ends. Now the pieces on the board have moved, due in no small part to their naked avarice, it's "boo-hoo it's all so fucking unfair".

I've said it before but it bears repeating. In 1981 five clubs (them, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal & Spurs) threatened to form a breakaway league unless the other clubs agreed to their proposal to stop sharing gate receipts and allow the home team to keep them all.

From that moment, the financial dynamic was changed in football and only Leeds managed to briefly break the stranglehold that these five clubs had on the league and that eventually bankrupted them.

In 1992, the same five clubs pushed for the formation of the Premier League and took the TV money (which had previously been shared with the lower divisions) all for themselves.

In the 32 years since 1981 only 4 teams outside that group of 5 have won the title, with only Chelsea winning it more than once so far. The "gang of 5" have won the title on 25 occasions. In the 30 years prior to 1981/2, something like 14 different teams won the league.

That is an eye opener, PB. A real fukcing eye opener! Astonishing.

He's left out the carve-up of European money by the group of 14(?) that originally included the rags and the red dippers.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's not a shit analogy at all and I've not missed the point. No-one can seriously have a problem with clubs wanting to keep the money that they have earned through their own supporters and due to the product that they supply.

You mean "doing it the right way"?

 

[Chipmeister]

I hear your argument, just one point to express that without other teams to play against there would no No gate receipts however big or small, so one could argue both teams playing in the game deserve a share of the gate receipts.

Not the same argument when comparing Peter Kay and whoever, peole turn up to watch one man on his own. So his money.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I hear your argument, just one point to express that without other teams to play against there would no No gate receipts however big or small, so one could argue both teams playing in the game deserve a share of the gate receipts.

Not the same argument when comparing Peter Kay and whoever, peole turn up to watch one man on his own. So his money.

The other profound difference is that Peter Kay doesn't pontificate, to the point of utter tedium, about how he's earned the right to stay at the top of his profession ad infinitum and that any new up and coming comics lack the requisite "class" and "history" to warrant a place alongside him.

It's not their success that pisses me off, it's their sense of entitlement and resolve that no-one else is allowed to join the party that marks their character and what makes their tears so beautifully delicious.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Shit analogy & you've missed the point. If someone bought a smaller supermarket group like Booths & poured money into until it rivalled Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys then there could and would be no complaint. Tesco wouldn't be whining that they'd built their business up over many years and Booths had no right to have outside investment. That's business.

The system of revenue sharing prior to 1981 was designed to ensure a relatively level playing field financially. That's what happens in the NFL, NBA and MLB and no one dominates. Only Liverpool & Everton, with the wealth of the Moores family, had a little bit more money in those days. There was very little TV money and therefore not much prize money in those days so gate money was the main revenue stream. So taking money off the smaller clubs was inherently unfair as that tipped the balance financially. Those 5 clubs went on to dominate the landscape as they then had more money (and the clubs with the most money usually win more things) while the other clubs had less. At least we've not 'stolen' money off other clubs to get where we are.

It's not a shit analogy at all and I've not missed the point. No-one can seriously have a problem with clubs wanting to keep the money that they have earned through their own supporters and due to the product that they supply. If you didn't like my previous analogy then perhaps it would be better to use an entertainment one, as that is what football is; it would be like Peter Kay giving half of his ticket sales to Jason Manford.

And comparing it to American sport does you no favours when their entire system is setup up for equality. If you want to follow the American way then there shall be no relegations and the team that finishes last gets to choose the best of the upcoming talent the following year.

If they're sharing the same stage, why shouldn't Kay and Manford share the receipt for the show?

Exactly. Or if you're a builder and someone asks you to help them out on a big job for a few days would you do it for nothing? The away club has travel expenses and has to pay their players and staff so they're entitled to a share of the revenue.

If keeping all the gate receipts was the established system then fine. But the bigger clubs changed it to give themselves an advantage and blackmailed the others to achieve that. They screwed the system to achieve their objectives. The point is they can hardly moan when we give ourselves an advantage.

 

[Chipmeister]

I hear your argument, just one point to express that without other teams to play against there would no No gate receipts however big or small, so one could argue both teams playing in the game deserve a share of the gate receipts.

Not the same argument when comparing Peter Kay and whoever, peole turn up to watch one man on his own. So his money.

The other profound difference is that Peter Kay doesn't pontificate, to the point of utter tedium, about how he's earned the right to stay at the top of his profession ad infinitum and that any new up and comics lack the requisite "class" and "history" to warrant a place alongside him.

It's not their success that pisses me off, it's their sense of entitlement and resolve that no-one else is allowed to join the party that marks their character and what makes their tears so beautifully delicious.

Well put GDS, all about them and it's so unfair hahaha

 

[LoveCity]

Fabrizio Romano ‏@FabRomano21 24m
Guarin is an idea for Manchester United but no official bid. Inter asks 15M€, Manchester don't want to spend more than 11/12: not easy #MUFC

You have to love the Glazers. United are one of the richest clubs in the world (despite debt) and they won't pay an extra few million for a midfielder who is better than pretty much all of their own.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Fabrizio Romano ‏@FabRomano21 24m
Guarin is an idea for Manchester United but no official bid. Inter asks 15M€, Manchester don't want to spend more than 11/12: not easy #MUFC

You have to love the Glazers. United are one of the richest clubs in the world (despite debt) and they won't pay an extra few million for a midfielder who is better than pretty much all of their own.

That FT article quoted a few pages back summed it up perfectly. The Glazers are running a business and aren't interested in spending any more of the rag money than they absolutely have to. And Moyes is the perfect manager to help them achieve that.