Ronaldo with more hair gel.
The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
Ronaldo with more hair gel.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Can't be bothered to go through the rest of your **** because it's all based on your delusional idea that Utd could potentially win the CL every season for a few seasons
edit: You're right, I missed the 'few seasons' part though
And I don't mean to come across so rude, it's sometimes just frustrating trying to explain things to you when your post is fundementally wrong.
Again you're making up rubbish AND backing up my point while mindlessly having a go at me.
I'm talking about in comparison to Liverpool. I'll be honest I can't for the life of me remember when liverpool got knocked out of the CL last year and if it was more than a round before Utd or not.
You might get 9mil for winning it, but you get 5.2mil for losing, you could make up to 31mil throughout the champs league start to finish. I would expect the sum to be significantly less for the Europa league and I don't expect Liverpool to frequently get to the final.
As YOU'VE stated, first to second is only 800k in the league, so coming second isn't a huge deal to Utd, being in the fight does because being a top 2 club and being a Europa league club is a big difference in fans gained, shirts sold and as pointed out, they made £4mil more than Liverpool alone from the league this single season, and they didn't win it.
The fact is Utd are consistantly in the top 2, Liverpool aren't consistantly in the top 2, they'll likely struggle to consistantly be in the top 6 in the next couple years. So of the 50mil I said, over 3 years, I'd be expecting 5mil(minimum this year, could be 10mil the way its going) a year just for the league, not winning doesn't make a difference, as YOU said, the fact they are several places ahead of Liverpool does. So thats 15mil right there.
If Pool go out of the Europa league early, and barely make 5million, and Utd get to the quarter finals, thats like 17million. I'd expect, and be surprised if Utd made less than 10 million extra in the champs league. They might not get 31m for winning the final, they might not get 27mil for being in the final, they could easily get 23mil for being in the semi's, or a few mil less for being in the quarters.
Utd are VERY likely to break 50mil more than Liverpool across the two competitions in the next 3 years, very very very likely, without winning either. If they did win the Champs league again, or get to another final, they you're talking about potentially getting way beyond that 50million. YOu seem to be ignoring that UTD can sell out 30k+ seats extra for a home game against Barca or Arsenal or whoever, and thats a HUGE amount of extra revenue Liverpool simple don't have.
I was talking about the club, they COMPETE for the title and they compete to win the champs league year on year, I'd be surprised if they ended outside the top 3, and I'd be surprised if they didn't make the quarter finals, I'd be surprised if they also didn't go quite far in one or both the other cups.
Liverpool literally have no chance of winning the champs leauge, Utd have a chance, not fantastic, but they have a great chance of getting very far, and THATS my point.
I don't remember saying Utd were odd's on favourites to win both every year, the fact they will be in the running and get close will mean they make the majority of the money anyway.
70% of Barca's winnings came from getting to the semi finals, the rest from the final.
Also yes, it DOES affect tv money, how many rounds your in and how far you go effects your share of the tv pool money.
You keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about, but the numbers add up, and you've gone with several different excuses why Utd aren't worth a CRAPLOAD more than Liverpool, and honestly, its you whose utterly wrong. UTD, 70k + stadium that generates far far more than Liverpool can until they could build a comparitively sized stadium, which is still years away and will cost hundreds and hundreds of millions.
Last edited:
Stop changing your arguement and making up even more ****.
Your initial point which I've argued against was that the method of calculating the value of either side was flawed because Utd could potentialy earn a further £50m by winning the league and CL instead of finishing 2nd and getting knocked out in the quarters.
Here's exactly what you said:
As I've pointed out, this arguement is massively flawed. The chances of (on average) actually improving on the money they've made directly from the CL and League is nigh on impossible and indirect earnings (sponsorships etc) have already been agreed on the back of them winning 3 leagues and a CL and a further final.
As below, I've not claimed this method of valuation is right, however your arguement is nothing short of ********!
I was responding to your point specifically regarding the difference between winning and losing the final. You would only earn more TV money from winning the final over losing the final if you beat another team from your country.
TV money is divided up not as a whole for the competition but divided between each country and then between each team from that country. So potentially you could earn more TV money from getting knocked out in the quarters (providing all other English sides got knocked out earlier) than if you lost the final (providing you lost to another English side).
I've never said anywhere that Utd aren't worth more than Liverpool let alone given an excuse. I simply highlighted a point in an article that said using the same calculation to get Liverpool's value, Utd wouldn't be valued as high as some reports and may explain the lack of a bid from the Red Knights. No where did I say the method of calculating the value was correct!
All my posts aimed at you have been to rubbish the nonsense you're making up regarding why somebody may over value Utd purely on the delusional idea that Utd could realistically earn £50m more from winning the CL and League over a few seasons.
So stop making up ****.
You do realise this method of valuation takes into account the fact that Utd are already earning more money?
Last edited:
Wind up? He's been awesome
So has Rooney been injured or not? I know Fergie's famous for coming out with BS about injuries but you don't often see the player come out and say that he's perfectly fit and hasn't missed a training session in 2 months after Taggart says they're injured.
Has he?
Yeah, considering he's making a transition to a new league he's started excellently. Don't you think he adds a dimension Arsenal were desperately lacking? A target man who holds the ball up and distributes well, can win headers and works hard for the team. He's been near perfect imo (considering what he was brought in for, he's doing it all well)
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Will get better hopefully as he gets more games. Just needs another goal or two for the time being.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Stop changing your arguement and making up even more ****.
Your initial point which I've argued against was that the method of calculating the value of either side was flawed because Utd could potentialy earn a further £50m by winning the league and CL instead of finishing 2nd and getting knocked out in the quarters.
Here's exactly what you said:
As I've pointed out, this arguement is massively flawed. The chances of (on average) actually improving on the money they've made directly from the CL and League is nigh on impossible and indirect earnings (sponsorships etc) have already been agreed on the back of them winning 3 leagues and a CL and a further final.
As below, I've not claimed this method of valuation is right, however your arguement is nothing short of ********!
I was responding to your point specifically regarding the difference between winning and losing the final. You would only earn more TV money from winning the final over losing the final if you beat another team from your country.
TV money is divided up not as a whole for the competition but divided between each country and then between each team from that country. So potentially you could earn more TV money from getting knocked out in the quarters (providing all other English sides got knocked out earlier) than if you lost the final (providing you lost to another English side).
I've never said anywhere that Utd aren't worth more than Liverpool let alone given an excuse. I simply highlighted a point in an article that said using the same calculation to get Liverpool's value, Utd wouldn't be valued as high as some reports and may explain the lack of a bid from the Red Knights. No where did I say the method of calculating the value was correct!
All my posts aimed at you have been to rubbish the nonsense you're making up regarding why somebody may over value Utd purely on the delusional idea that Utd could realistically earn £50m more from winning the CL and League over a few seasons.
So stop making up ****.
You do realise this method of valuation takes into account the fact that Utd are already earning more money?
You constantly say I make up crap, yet you've not come close to showing why Utd won't win 50mil more than Liverpool in the next few years.
Why don't you start there.
Likewise there IS a difference between coming second and first in both competitions. I said there is a difference, just from winnings alone the difference is 5million, of course winning the champs league vs not winning means, more shirts sold, higher sponsorship, more power in negotiating tv deals(for barca at least, uk deals are different though afaik, changing).
You'll notice I said the second part, which you quoted, in a DIFFERENT paragraph if you want to be pedantic and pick apart every single thing I said rather than accept the premise and general argument I'm making, which is fairly obvious that Utd are MASSIVELY more successful than Liverpool of late, have a quite ridiculous higher percentage chance of winning at least something every year if not several titles vs Liverpool.
As I said, the separate sentence in a separate paragraph said I think Utd will win at least 40-50mil more over a few years that Liverpool can't generate right now, ignoring all other factors like ticket sales, shirt sales and what not which already make Utd are far higher value club.
I started this off saying your utter oversimplification of if Liverpool should be valued at 8.5times their revenue(I've forgotten what it was it was so much rubbish from you ago now) means Utd should be mentioned on the same scale, its rubbish.
Not least becausethe 8.5times value isn't being used for Liverpool, the impending huge costs on debt, potential administration and forceful removal of the owners by the bank are what makes the bids the prices they are now. Without debt, and without the time sensitive nature of the bids, they'd be significantly higher. Sorry but none of that would be involved in takeovers at a huge number of clubs, let alone UTD's.
SO lets see, I said UTd would win 40-50mil more than Liverpool, and showed numbers to suggest I low balled it, and you said it was rubbish, because you're linking 15 different parts of different sentences together to say thats not what I meant, while not actually proving my numbers wrong, but claiming I'm wrong anyway.
WHy not firstly, stop being pedantic, I was clearly saying UTD are worth more than liverpool, are more successful, are in the fight for 4 cups a year in general and have a good shot of winning 1 or 2, Liverpool are barely in the hunt for anything any years. This effects the growth and value of every single part of the clubs running, which effects the viability and valuation of the club.
Go back find some other sentence I miss spoke, or miss spelled, and use that to ignore the actual debate, because thats what you seem to love doing.
Remember, just because I said there was a difference between 1st and 2nd(5mil straight off, long term, millions and millions more with everything else factored in) the difference between 2nd in both and 7th, is even bigger, I didn't out and out say that, it was implied, its obvious, get over it. SO lets get this straight, in one sentence I claimed Utd were CONTENDERS to win both titles every year, and Liverpool weren't, factually correct, or incorrect? I also said theres a big difference between winning both and coming second, 5mil ain't bad, factually correct. I then say in a different paragraph I think Utd will win 40-50mil more than Liverpool over the next few years and back that up with numbers. Please explain which part of that is wrong? The KEY part of that first paragraph was that Utd are CONTENDERS, winning would just increase the winnings pretty fast, that fact they are contenders, is what makes them win more money.
If my numbers are wrong, prove it, don't use some random argument and claim I'm wrong.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe the Europa league is worth a lot more than I think, I haven't looked it up, I assume as much because just looking at this forum very few people can be bothered to watch the Europa league compared to the Champs league. Maybe getting to the same stage , say quarter finals in each competition is only worth a couple mil less in Europa, I don't know, why not try that side of the debate, rather than being a (incorrect) grammer nazi.
EDIT:-Getting to the semi final in Europa league is around 3mil with a couple wins and a draw in the group stage, getting to the final nets 2mil, and winning a further 1mil, all euro's.
So winning the Europa league is worth 6mil Euro's, a little higher if you hit every qualifying stage and won every game(I added in 3rd qualifying, not sure where Liverpool went in this year, 90k a pop for those so hardly a huge difference), vs 31mil Euro's if you win the champs league.
You make more I believe in the Champs league being involved in the group stage and LOSING every game than if you win the Europa league, if you win a few and go to the knock out stages, I think the quarter finals alone would have you winning 3 times as much.
So Pool win the Europa league(can't see it) and get 6million, and Utd average the quarter finals, and make 12million more, and 5mil more from finish 6-7 places ahead of Liverpool, and you really can't see why Utd will make 50mil more at least in the new few years?
I'll be honest, I didn't think the Europa league money was that crap, the Semi's are worth 630k, before that its really not worth much at all, half the value of a Europa league win comes from the final, vs less than 1/3 for the champs league. The majority of the money in the champs league is up to the quarters, which is pretty easy for Utd these days.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
Wenger reckons it takes at least 6 months to get to grips with a new league so on that basis I'd say that Chamakh has done well so far.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
He's not done too bad. Don't forget as well his performances can be like Arshavins or team as a whole. Giant wins every now and again cloud how how inconsistent some of our players are.
I've noticed something else last weekend, and again with England on Tuesday night. What is the point in having the Chamakhs or Crouches in the area when such is the way with the 451, most crosses are put in by the left or right back? It seems odd to me that we'd change our play like that and expect on top of defensive duties, Clichy and Sagna to get assists. They're terrible at crossing and they also shouldn't be the ones doing it.
Walrus **** face has responded to Danny Murphy by yet again claiming he'd never send out a side to deliberately harm other players. Yet wasn't he the one who started the whole 'get in Arsenals' faces' years ago? That I believe was from one manager. The same managers, irrespective of who else they go onto manage take their style of football with them. What Danny Murphy was saying was control players' tempers, seemingly some managers tolerate this differently and it's obvious some don't bother with it at all, irrespective of what they claim.
I've noticed something else last weekend, and again with England on Tuesday night. What is the point in having the Chamakhs or Crouches in the area when such is the way with the 451, most crosses are put in by the left or right back? It seems odd to me that we'd change our play like that and expect on top of defensive duties, Clichy and Sagna to get assists. They're terrible at crossing and they also shouldn't be the ones doing it.
Walrus **** face has responded to Danny Murphy by yet again claiming he'd never send out a side to deliberately harm other players. Yet wasn't he the one who started the whole 'get in Arsenals' faces' years ago? That I believe was from one manager. The same managers, irrespective of who else they go onto manage take their style of football with them. What Danny Murphy was saying was control players' tempers, seemingly some managers tolerate this differently and it's obvious some don't bother with it at all, irrespective of what they claim.
Last edited:
Near perfect compared to what? Expectations?
I think Chamakh's been a capable player, but hardly amazing. Although I appreciate what he's done, and think he's earned a spot above Bendtner in the team, I'd still put RvP straight back into the starting lineup over him, without even considering it.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/succinct?view=uk
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/brevity?view=uk
Last edited:
Yeah, my expectations, I just thought he'd come in to replace RvP when he's injured so there is less transition and change in Arsenal's play between his injuries. He's done that well, the team hasn't changed their play much since RvP died, the midfield look far less stifled when he plays unlike last season. He just helps things tick along. Maybe my expectations are a bit low since I'm taking into consideration changing leagues etc. but I think he's done his job well. Also, Arsenal are now a threat from crosses, he gets his head on nearly everything, unbelievably good in the air which is very valuable to Arsenal
Jesus ****ing Christ! It's amazingly difficult not being rude to you.
Let's make this as clear as possible. The point you made which I've argued is that somebody may over value Utd based on the fact that they might earn an extra £50m over a few years on top of what they are already earning from winning the CL and League rather than finishing 2nd in the league and quarter finalists in the CL. I've not argued that Utd won't earn £50m more than Liverpool from League + European prize/tv money. I'm arguing that Utd won't earn £50m more than what they are already earning which is what YOU claimed to be realistic.
I made it clear that I couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your post because it was based on the point above.
Now, I'll try again to explain why your main point is nothing but a fantasy:
- How many times have Utd won the European Cup? 3 times. So is it realistic to over value Utd based on them possibly winning the CL several times in a few years? No, it's not.
- Utd's share of last years CL TV money was based on them winning their domestic league the season before and along with Arsenal, being the last of the English sides to be knocked out of the CL. Utd finished 2nd in the League last season so even if they progress the furthest of all the English sides in this seasons CL, it's likely that the amount they earn from CL TV money will actually be LESS!
- As we've agree, the difference in Premier League money isn't likely to make too much of a difference.
- Finally the increased money that Utd could earn from Sponsorships, Ticket sales etc if they were to win the CL and League: Utd's main sponsorship deal was signed directly on the back of them winning 3 league titles, 1 CL and a further CL final. How the **** are they realistically going to improve on that in order them to get a larger deal because of their on field performances? Equally Utd are already selling out OT and the Glazers are already charging Utd fans as much as they can on the back of a period of great success on the pitch.
Other than Utd winning the league and CL 3 times each in the next few years, I don't see how their on the field performance will be the reason for increased ticket sales, sponsorship deals and general merchandising. If you disagree then you're delusional.
I think it's best to agree to disagree and if a Don is watching, if I quote DM ever again, ban me!
Last edited:
See I've done this dance with DM on multiple occasions, and I've just gone straight to being rude nowadays, because he doesn't seem to get it through his skull what you're trying to say otherwise. Even then he doesn't mind.
Danny Murphy talks utter rubbish and is merely paving the way for a lucrative pundit career. His own discipline record is far from perfect and he plays for a manager who's team are set out to be as strong and physical as any other team in the prem.
Maybe if he pumped himself up for games more he would not have been a failure at Tottenham and Liverpool rather than just been a good player in average mid table/bottom half teams.
Unfortunately for Danny, walrus face made some good points and has the stats and data to back it up.
Also I think most of the other premiership manager would agree with Sam and take issue with Murphys comment. Except Arsene of course but he is mentally ill.
Last season you last you bossed possession at Chelsea but put your loss down to not having a striker up front and playing arshavin there instead
This season you bossed possession at Chelsea and had a striker upfront but still lacked a goal threat
To be honest I think apart from in the air Chamakh has shown very little from what I've seen. Certainly not up to the standards of your nearest rivals 'second choice strikers'
- Status