United thread 2018/19

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

about a year or so back , someone posted a passage from a book I think all about united and how they voted to keep all home gate receipts where previously they got shared equally between both clubs ,this was the beginning then voted for other financial rules to steer everything their own way , we did too to a degree but this is largely why only 4 or so clubs have ever won the premiership , previously from 1960 until 1985 I think over 20 different clubs won the old first division , all due to the change in finance in football .
I so wish I could find that item again!

I think it is discussed in David Conn book Richer than God.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Have we bought our titles?

All clubs "bought" their titles or second or third place or 4th from bottom to avoid relegation. They are all professional clubs, ergo there are costs involved. It is a moot point.

 

[Neville Kneville]

My recollection was that it was Blackburn rather than Newcastle who won Shearer's signature ahead of the rags - and for nothing like £15m?
Were they ever even in the running when he left Ewood Park? Again, totally as I recall it but I think most fans didn't take any of the reports of their supposed interest at that time seriously because Shearer's dislike of the rags was pretty well known at that stage.

You might we'll be right but I think it was the earlier if the two deals when they came closest.

As for your general argument that United didn't buy success. It's a well worn tale but one that consistently avoids the inconvenient truths. Things such as fielding the most expensive side in British Football history in 1989 and breaking more British transfer records than anybody else during Ferguson's reign.

To be fair, their record of promoting from the academy was about on a par, number-wise, as everyone else at that time. Everybody did so because there wasn't enough money to do anything else. What they did do differently was promote a top standard of player - from the only elite academy in English football - into a well stocked team.
There are two elite academies in English Football now (City and Chelsea). They will never promote the same volume of players into their first teams though. Neither will anybody else. This is because the money is in the game (at the top end, obviously) to buy ready-made players and the demand for success is such that clubs can't afford to fall away from the top end of the game.

So, I guess they'll always have that little boast and fellows like you will forever glibly accept and promote it. That's your prerogative, of course.

Shearer chose Newcastle over Utd and Keegan previously sold Andy Cole to Utd for 7 mil.


Ferguson early spending by year:

87: Bruce 825k, McClair 850k, Anderson 250k
88: Hughes 1.8 mil, Leighton 500k, Sharpe, 200k, Donaghy 650k, Milne, 170k
89: Phelan 750k, Webb 1.5 mil, Pallister 2.3 mil, Ince 1 mil, Wallace 1.2 mil
90: Irwin 625k
91: Kanchelskis 650k, Schmeichel 500k, Parker 2 mil,
92: Dublin 1 mil, Cantona 1.2 mil.

92 being the year the premier league started.

In 91 Utd were floated at 47 million.

In 89 they were selling at 20 million.

In 84 they almost sold to Robert Maxwell for 10 million.

If we look at the aborted sale in 89 at 20 mil.

In that and the previous seasons, Utd were valued between 10-20 mi and spent 12 mil on players.

If we choose the 20 mil figure then 12 million is 60% of the value of MUFC at the time (at least) spent on transfers, in 3 seasons.

So the equivalent spending of Ferguson in 3 years pre Premier League, 60% of the club's value, If Jose started now, would be spending about 2 billion in the next 3 seasons.

 

[Neville Kneville]

That's without adding in the transfers from 91 and 92 when the club was floated at 47 mil, all of which were signed to win the 1st Prem title.

 

[inchy14]

Shearer chose Newcastle over Utd and Keegan previously sold Andy Cole to Utd for 7 mil.


Ferguson early spending by year:

87: Bruce 825k, McClair 850k, Anderson 250k
88: Hughes 1.8 mil, Leighton 500k, Sharpe, 200k, Donaghy 650k, Milne, 170k
89: Phelan 750k, Webb 1.5 mil, Pallister 2.3 mil, Ince 1 mil, Wallace 1.2 mil
90: Irwin 625k
91: Kanchelskis 650k, Schmeichel 500k, Parker 2 mil,
92: Dublin 1 mil, Cantona 1.2 mil.

92 being the year the premier league started.

In 91 Utd were floated at 47 million.

In 89 they were selling at 20 million.

In 84 they almost sold to Robert Maxwell for 10 million.

If we look at the aborted sale in 89 at 20 mil.

In that and the previous seasons, Utd were valued between 10-20 mi and spent 12 mil on players.

If we choose the 20 mil figure then 12 million is 60% of the value of MUFC at the time (at least) spent on transfers, in 3 seasons.

So the equivalent spending of Ferguson in 3 years pre Premier League, 60% of the club's value, If Jose started now, would be spending about 2 billion in the next 3 seasons.

That's without adding in the transfers from 91 and 92 when the club was floated at 47 mil, all of which were signed to win the 1st Prem title.

Wasting your breath mate, he’s no fucking clue or........

 

[mackenzie]

It's unbelievable really the state of that club.
The GPC was an annoying twat but he would never have let it get to the point where public meltdowns and snidey comments to the press were an everyday occurrence.
They are a shadow of what they once were, both in terms of pitch performance and how the club discipline is completely shot.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

about a year or so back , someone posted a passage from a book I think all about united and how they voted to keep all home gate receipts where previously they got shared equally between both clubs ,this was the beginning then voted for other financial rules to steer everything their own way , we did too to a degree but this is largely why only 4 or so clubs have ever won the premiership , previously from 1960 until 1985 I think over 20 different clubs won the old first division , all due to the change in finance in football .
I so wish I could find that item again!

Was this what you were talking about?

In spite of Liverpool's dominance in the late 70's, thirteen different clubs won the First Division between 1960 and 1981, including the likes of Burnley, Ipswich, Forest and Derby.

There was a reason for this; the TV and gate money was split along fairly equitable lines. In terms of gate receipts, it was a system that had been in place since the 19th century and ensured that money was redistributed throughout the game in a manner that tried to create a level playing field, as much as possible.

Some clubs were uncomfortable with this. Some clubs thought it was unfair that 'smaller' clubs were benefitting from their larger supporter-base and so they took steps to address it. Five clubs in particular took it upon themselves to reshape the way that finances in football were distributed: united, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal. It started with Football League gate receipts in the early 80's, thereafter allowing home clubs to keep all of the receipts from ticket sales in league games (the old rules remaining in the FA Cup). This clearly benefitted the larger clubs with bigger capacities. The way that TV money was distributed was next, in terms of the terrestrial deal - more money would be kept by those at the top, at the expense of those at the bottom. However this didn't go far enough for some clubs and so a few years later a breakaway league was formed, The Premier League, with the top division keeping all their TV money to themselves. Throughout all those events, certain clubs threatened to go off on their own if their demands weren't met. Principally, the same five that made the moves around gate receipts, although tbf, other clubs, City included, were either compliant or acquiescent with the direction of travel. There was lots of money to be made, after all.

All these moves were designed by the 'top' clubs to concentrate more and more money at the top of the English game. It is concomitant of this approach, that those at the bottom would receive less, at least in relative terms. These clubs sought to enrich themselves by changing the rules to favour themselves, and it is undeniable that for them, it worked and enabled them to 'earn' their money 'the right way' for a sustained period.

More and more money flooded into the upper echelons of the English game, as a serendipitous cocktail of global media and technological advances conflated to create a perfect storm for those who were prescient enough to engineer their own good fortune at the right time. And it worked wonderfully for a number of years. The rich got even richer, on and off the pitch, whilst the rest of the game barely managed to keep its head above water. However, as the Premier League brand and the reflected glory that accompanies it continued to grow, people outside the party started to want a piece of the action. People like Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour. Why wouldn't they? I know I would if I had that sort of dough.

What we are seeing is quite simply the natural outcome of the decisions that were made in the early 80's. Create a sufficiently large honeypot and it will draw attention. Concentrate enough money in a particular area, then predators will circle and want a piece of it. It isn't particularly complicated or unexpected.

Perhaps if supporters of the foregoing 'Big 5' made the effort to research the subject, they would realise that it was their clubs' naked greed and own form of financial doping that created the landscape for the Sugar Daddies they decry to want to (and be able to) enter the fray. If they'd left well alone, and kept spreading the wealth around, the English game would still be wholesome and trophies would be spread out more evenly, which is something I'm sure they'd all greatly welcome - except they wouldn't, of course.

If you change the rules to suit yourself, don't expect that advantage to last forever.

And be careful what you wish for.

 

[Indaparkside]

Shearer chose Newcastle over Utd and Keegan previously sold Andy Cole to Utd for 7 mil.


Ferguson early spending by year:

87: Bruce 825k, McClair 850k, Anderson 250k
88: Hughes 1.8 mil, Leighton 500k, Sharpe, 200k, Donaghy 650k, Milne, 170k
89: Phelan 750k, Webb 1.5 mil, Pallister 2.3 mil, Ince 1 mil, Wallace 1.2 mil
90: Irwin 625k
91: Kanchelskis 650k, Schmeichel 500k, Parker 2 mil,
92: Dublin 1 mil, Cantona 1.2 mil.

92 being the year the premier league started.

In 91 Utd were floated at 47 million.

In 89 they were selling at 20 million.

In 84 they almost sold to Robert Maxwell for 10 million.

If we look at the aborted sale in 89 at 20 mil.

In that and the previous seasons, Utd were valued between 10-20 mi and spent 12 mil on players.

If we choose the 20 mil figure then 12 million is 60% of the value of MUFC at the time (at least) spent on transfers, in 3 seasons.

So the equivalent spending of Ferguson in 3 years pre Premier League, 60% of the club's value, If Jose started now, would be spending about 2 billion in the next 3 seasons.

Shearer chose Newcastle over Utd and Keegan previously sold Andy Cole to Utd for 7 mil.


Ferguson early spending by year:

87: Bruce 825k, McClair 850k, Anderson 250k
88: Hughes 1.8 mil, Leighton 500k, Sharpe, 200k, Donaghy 650k, Milne, 170k
89: Phelan 750k, Webb 1.5 mil, Pallister 2.3 mil, Ince 1 mil, Wallace 1.2 mil
90: Irwin 625k
91: Kanchelskis 650k, Schmeichel 500k, Parker 2 mil,
92: Dublin 1 mil, Cantona 1.2 mil.

92 being the year the premier league started.

In 91 Utd were floated at 47 million.

In 89 they were selling at 20 million.

In 84 they almost sold to Robert Maxwell for 10 million.

If we look at the aborted sale in 89 at 20 mil.

In that and the previous seasons, Utd were valued between 10-20 mi and spent 12 mil on players.

If we choose the 20 mil figure then 12 million is 60% of the value of MUFC at the time (at least) spent on transfers, in 3 seasons.

So the equivalent spending of Ferguson in 3 years pre Premier League, 60% of the club's value, If Jose started now, would be spending about 2 billion in the next 3 seasons.

Shearer chose Newcastle over Utd and Keegan previously sold Andy Cole to Utd for 7 mil.


Ferguson early spending by year:

87: Bruce 825k, McClair 850k, Anderson 250k
88: Hughes 1.8 mil, Leighton 500k, Sharpe, 200k, Donaghy 650k, Milne, 170k
89: Phelan 750k, Webb 1.5 mil, Pallister 2.3 mil, Ince 1 mil, Wallace 1.2 mil
90: Irwin 625k
91: Kanchelskis 650k, Schmeichel 500k, Parker 2 mil,
92: Dublin 1 mil, Cantona 1.2 mil.

92 being the year the premier league started.

In 91 Utd were floated at 47 million.

In 89 they were selling at 20 million.

In 84 they almost sold to Robert Maxwell for 10 million.

If we look at the aborted sale in 89 at 20 mil.

In that and the previous seasons, Utd were valued between 10-20 mi and spent 12 mil on players.

If we choose the 20 mil figure then 12 million is 60% of the value of MUFC at the time (at least) spent on transfers, in 3 seasons.

So the equivalent spending of Ferguson in 3 years pre Premier League, 60% of the club's value, If Jose started now, would be spending about 2 billion in the next 3 seasons.

Shearer chose Newcastle over Utd and Keegan previously sold Andy Cole to Utd for 7 mil.


Ferguson early spending by year:

87: Bruce 825k, McClair 850k, Anderson 250k
88: Hughes 1.8 mil, Leighton 500k, Sharpe, 200k, Donaghy 650k, Milne, 170k
89: Phelan 750k, Webb 1.5 mil, Pallister 2.3 mil, Ince 1 mil, Wallace 1.2 mil
90: Irwin 625k
91: Kanchelskis 650k, Schmeichel 500k, Parker 2 mil,
92: Dublin 1 mil, Cantona 1.2 mil.

92 being the year the premier league started.

In 91 Utd were floated at 47 million.

In 89 they were selling at 20 million.

In 84 they almost sold to Robert Maxwell for 10 million.

If we look at the aborted sale in 89 at 20 mil.

In that and the previous seasons, Utd were valued between 10-20 mi and spent 12 mil on players.

If we choose the 20 mil figure then 12 million is 60% of the value of MUFC at the time (at least) spent on transfers, in 3 seasons.

So the equivalent spending of Ferguson in 3 years pre Premier League, 60% of the club's value, If Jose started now, would be spending about 2 billion in the next 3 seasons.

He was wank for us but 500,000 for schmeichel in his prime what would he be worth in today's money

 

[Indaparkside]

He was wank for us but 500,000 for schmeichel in his prime what would he be worth in today's money

Fuck knows how replied to the same post 4 times this Gins good:)