Manchester United - decline?

Gilly · 15 May 2012 at 13:13

Who cares where the money comes from? If it isn't directly from the pitch it doesn't matter whether it's a football club making money as a company or some dude making money disconnected from the club he buys.

It makes no sense at all. It's just one more thing for manyoo fans to whine about having had the tables loaded towards them for so long.

cwhitehead · 15 May 2012 at 13:18

Personally love the fact united are being challenged for the top spots again, watched both matches flicking between them and can honestly say i haven't been that excited about football since the final cup of the treble!

But to say city didnt buy it is silly, and to complain about it is silly from a united perspective. the team they had was shocking they was never going to contend with it, so why not chuck money into it. It's a business at the end of the day and it the want to increase revenues they need to be having the sucess to match.

Tom84 · 15 May 2012 at 13:19

Gilly said:
It makes no sense at all. It's just one more thing for manyoo fans to whine about having had the tables loaded towards them for so long.

The tables loaded towards them? By that I assume you mean employing a great manager 25 years ago who got the club to the top, kept the club at the top and managed to build on that with the money the club brought in because of the success? is that how the tables were loaded towards them?

MooMoo444 · 15 May 2012 at 13:25

Kids in china and asia buying Man Utd shirts is not a lot different than some rich owner from the middle east pouring money into Man City.

Both are sources of external income. Who cares where it comes from, it's money invested in the club. When City start dominating, which I honestly think they will, then they will generate massive fan revenue also.

Witor · 15 May 2012 at 13:25

Gilly said:
Who cares where the money comes from? If it isn't directly from the pitch it doesn't matter whether it's a football club making money as a company or some dude making money disconnected from the club he buys.

It makes no sense at all. It's just one more thing for manyoo fans to whine about having had the tables loaded towards them for so long.

I care where it comes from, to a point. Huuuge Cash injections from (very often) fickle owners dont necessarily bode well for the long(er) term future of a club.

If said owner gets bored, and the team in question hasn't got a large steady positive cash flow being generated (not injected), then I can only see their success being short term. City is the current case in point, remains to be seen what the long term effects are.

cwhitehead · 15 May 2012 at 13:28

MooMoo444 said:
Kids in china and asia buying Man Utd shirts is not a lot different than some rich owner from the middle east pouring money into Man City.

Both are sources of external income. Who cares where it comes from, it's money invested in the club. When City start dominating, which I honestly think they will, then they will generate massive fan revenue also.

Are you ******** me comparing the two???

I do some of the shipping for MCFC and most of their shirts are exports and exported at prices like 10USD for a full kit!

Every club will generate revenue from over seas not just united.

Gilly · 15 May 2012 at 13:29

Tom84 said:
The tables loaded towards them? By that I assume you mean employing a great manager 25 years ago who got the club to the top, kept the club at the top and managed to build on that with the money the club brought in because of the success? is that how the tables were loaded towards them?

They were loaded towards them on their revenue earned that they generated by being in the right place at the right time, and being well run as a business.

Do you honestly think the winnings will match up to the revenue generated via other streams?

In 88/89 they spent over £8m in one season on players, having won nothing for years. Where did that money come from?

Witor said:
I care where it comes from, to a point. Huuuge Cash injections from (very often) fickle owners dont necessarily bode well for the long(er) term future of a club.

I agree with that, but that's nothing for other fans to concern themselves with unless it is to the detriment of the league.

MooMoo444 · 15 May 2012 at 13:29

cwhitehead said:
Are you ******** me comparing the two???

I do some of the shipping for MCFC and most of their shirts are exports and exported at prices like 10USD for a full kit!

Every club will generate revenue from over seas not just united.

Are you implying that City and Utd's global revenue is similar?

cwhitehead · 15 May 2012 at 13:32

Moses said:
If clubs are only allowed to spend what they earn, with that being completely unrestricted, all you'd get is Manyoo getting further and further ahead... with all Leagues going the way of Scotland! A club's dominant position would just get reinforced year upon year. If clubs aren't allowed outside investment, a club like Everton will NEVER be able to compete on an equal footing.

Some people might see that as fair... but I see that as unfair/bad for sport... hence why I want wage caps/revenue sharing up to that cap (so everyone spends the same on wages, each year).

I see your point with this but i think that you shouldnt be allowed to spend the money unless your turning over posititve at the end of the season. at least then it can be controlled to a certain extent it would maybe put a year where no transfers are made but i think it would work better.

Tom84 · 15 May 2012 at 13:33

Gilly said:
They were loaded towards them on their revenue earned that they generated by being in the right place at the right time, and being well run as a business.

So then you agree then, the tables being loaded towards them was the club signing a great manager 25 years ago?

cwhitehead · 15 May 2012 at 13:34

MooMoo444 said:
Are you implying that City and Utd's global revenue is similar?

thats like comparing their UK revenue, it makes no differance.

MUFC export what their demand is.
MCFC export what their demand is.

Thats like saying because united are a bigger club than others overseas every other club needs a billionair to balance that out..

MooMoo444 · 15 May 2012 at 13:35

cwhitehead said:
I see your point with this but i think that you shouldnt be allowed to spend the money unless your turning over posititve at the end of the season. at least then it can be controlled to a certain extent it would maybe put a year where no transfers are made but i think it would work better.

Under that system the clubs in front would just get further and further in front.

Picture something like;

Wins league.
Gets more fans.
More money, dominates league even more.
More fans jump on the bandwagon.
More money to dominate further.

All the while second place doesn't have the kind of income to compete.

cwhitehead said:
thats like comparing their UK revenue, it makes no differance.

MUFC export what their demand is.
MCFC export what their demand is.

Thats like saying because united are a bigger club than others overseas every other club needs a billionair to balance that out..

Utd happened to be fortunate to be the most dominant club at the time football really took off globally. If it had been City, then people would be slating United for being owned by billionaire russians/arabs.

cwhitehead · 15 May 2012 at 13:40

Totally agree, but like i say i have nothing wrong with city buying their sucess for future. It's how you make money by investing in it's future.

Im one of the united fans who actually thinks its great and nice to see for a change but something has to be done before it gets out of hand with regards to spending so much money no one else has a chance to compete unless you have money.

Tom84 · 15 May 2012 at 13:40

MooMoo444 said:
Under that system the clubs in front would just get further and further in front.

Picture something like;

Wins league.
Gets more fans.
More money, dominates league even more.
More fans jump on the bandwagon.
More money to dominate further.

All the while second place doesn't have the kind of income to compete.

Have the likes of Arsenal and Newcastle spent anywhere near the kinds of money over the last 8 years as Chelsea or City have? I can see the point of the neutral that without Chelsea and City United would have dominated even more than we have done over the past 8 years but you only have to look at the players Newcastle have signed with the likes of Tiote, Cabaye, Ba & Cisse all signed for less than what City paid for Barry or Milner to see that the players are out there to compete without having to have a billionaire owner backing you (I realise Ashley isn't short of a penny or two but he's not in the same league as RA and Mansour)

Gilly · 15 May 2012 at 13:52

Tom84 said:
So then you agree then, the tables being loaded towards them was the club signing a great manager 25 years ago?

No. The tables being loaded towards them was money being made outside of the game being brought into the game by a manager employed (and almost sacked twice) 25 years ago.

Tom84 · 15 May 2012 at 13:54

Gilly said:
No. The tables being loaded towards them was money being made outside of the game being brought into the game by a manager employed (and almost sacked twice) 25 years ago.

What money? :confused:

Gilly · 15 May 2012 at 14:18

Tom84 said:
What money?

Gilly said:
They were loaded towards them on their revenue earned that they generated by being in the right place at the right time, and being well run as a business.

Do you honestly think the winnings will match up to the revenue generated via other streams?

In 88/89 they spent over £8m in one season on players, having won nothing for years. Where did that money come from?

Tom84 · 15 May 2012 at 14:28

So you dont know is the answer and you're purely speculating then.

Gilly · 15 May 2012 at 14:30

I don't know what?

I asked you where the money for the players came from. They spent £8m in one season and in the 80's that just didn't happen. It can't have come from success, because they hadn't had any.

It came from outside the game, just like City's money, and just like manyoo's millions garnered from floating on the stock market.

Tom84 · 15 May 2012 at 14:33

Gilly said:
I don't know what?

I asked you where the money for the players came from. They spent £8m in one season and in the 80's that just didn't happen. It can't have come from success, because they hadn't had any.

The club won the FA Cup twice in the 80's and then a third time the season those players were brought in. Truth is as I was born in 84 so I dont know where the money came from to sign the players the club did in 89 and judging by your elusive answer you dont know either so you're purely speculating.