United Thread 2014/15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vic said:
Have I missed comment on this? http://thebusbybabe.sbnation.com/2014/7/17/5912471/manchester-united-louis-van-gaal-sponsors

At his first Manchester United press conference, Louis van Gaal took the unusual step of singling the sponsors out for a special mention. Twice. What was he up to?

Sponsors are always present at press conferences. They're at the back, printed on the big board, hanging behind whoever's talking like really rubbish wallpaper. Nobody really notices them any more, but it's a space that costs a fortune and subconsciously makes you think better of Nikoflohubermisterpotato, so there they stay.

But they're not usually mentioned by anybody. One of the more intriguing aspects of Louis van Gaal's first press conference, then, along with the Carrick-bomb and the fact that he claimed the Eredivisie was better than Serie A on the grounds he'd managed there, was that he mentioned the sponsors a couple of times.

The first was pretty bland, an early shout for "how important the sponsors" are. Presumably that made Ed Woodward feel all warm and good inside. (Stop it, Ed. You've transfers to be getting on with.) The second, though, was more pointed. "It is not always possible to fulfil the commercial expectations and the football expectations."

Now, this could mean a couple of things. The first is a fairly uncontroversial note that if the club doesn't win, then neither the football nor the flogging of things will go well. But the second reading, a more entertaining option, is that Van Gaal was making a point about the incompatibility of the two. That the steps required to fulfil the commercial expectations may not chime with those required to fulfil the footballing aims; that one may inhibit the other.

Whether he was referring to anything specific here is unclear, but we note the recent resurgence of the rumours that United may take advantage of their absence from Europe to play midweek glamour friendlies in far-flung emerging markets. That's training time being eaten up.

There are managers who are happy to play the game the way the sponsors want to play it; to accede to pretty much anything as just a part of the reality of modern football. Van Gaal, it's probably safe to say, isn't one of them. There may be nothing here, of course, but it's just possible that there might be something brewing. And if so, who would you back? Messrs Woodward and Potato, or the Iron Tulip?
Click to expand...

The Iron Tulip?????


Hopefully he really does fuck off the commercial side of things - in a few years they may have to pay Admiral a couple of hundred quid a year for a set of kits.
 
In the rags case if there ever was a dispute over money income through sponsors or the manager I would bet the manager would lose. Glazers are in it purely for the money.
 
Rammyblues said:
In the rags case if there ever was a dispute over money income through sponsors or the manager I would bet the manager would lose. Glazers are in it purely for the money.
Click to expand...
Well it is professional sports after all.
 
Rags took sponsorship to a new level, only club I believe who do not have football club on their badge. And it still irks me that they flounce around in jackets wearing Manchester Coat of Arms when Trafford have a superb coat of arms. They are still c"nts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.