Manchester United Talk banner
21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
27,712 Posts
mufc-ok said:
I for one hate modern football. I wish i lived in the 70s and 80s. :(
but then you would be old as zuco :eek: football has never been better IMO the money side is a joke but the stranded is much higher
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
cantos red army said:
but then you would be old as zuco :eek: football has never been better IMO the money side is a joke but the stranded is much higher

**** Take?

Modern football at least for the fan is absolutelly terrible we have been robbed of the game we love

1. Being forced to sit down

2. Being ripped off at every opportunity by our own club

3. Massivelly overpriced tickets

4. No atmosphere at football grounds

5. Day trippers and corporates more or less have taken over most grounds

6. Old bill always going over the top and treating us football fans like scum

7. Too many supporters being priced out

8. Getting funny looks from your own fellow supporters for chanting

9. Sky and setanta !!

I love the storys my dad and grandad tell me when they followed united all round the country back in the old days, Shame its not like that now

But i think the bubble will burst sooner than people think.
 
G

·
In an ideal situation the fans would own United but that's never going to happen. :(

A lot of people think that thousands of Reds hate the Glazers because they are American.
Couldn't be further from the truth if they tried.

The hatred comes from the way they took over, ie bank loans of 100s of millions, putting the payments of the debt onto the fans, refusing to even allow supporters groups a small say on anything, in effect saying fcuk the fans they are nothing.
Pre Glazer = United had ZERO debt....May 12th 2005 = United suddenly had £6/700m debt with interest payments of £50m+ to be paid by us/you fans.
You may not know but the Glazers are not even meeting the interest payments due.
Yes United made £50m profit last year and some fans thinks that was great......but it didn't even pay the interest on the debt.
Some of us knew the way they operated at Tampa Bay Bucs and they have done exactly the same at United.

If another buyer bought United with HIS own money, wiping out the debt, it would be a thousand times better for everyone concerned.

scottsati made a great post which i totally agree with...

one thing would say is i like the way randy learner has run villa, put in cash, hasnt raised ticket prices more than is reasonable, hasn't stuck his nose in where it ain't wanted, donated to charity-with the shirt sponsors etc, paid for fans to go to some away games and lastly notice how he doesn't hog the limelight or has to be the big I am.

If a buyer was like that for United, plus allowed the fans to buy shares (small stake say 5-10% in total) to give real fans just the smallest voice, then i wouldn't care where he came from.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,547 Posts
SALFORD RED said:
In an ideal situation the fans would own United but that's never going to happen. :(

(...)

The hatred comes from the way they took over, ie bank loans of 100s of millions, putting the payments of the debt onto the fans, refusing to even allow supporters groups a small say on anything, in effect saying fcuk the fans they are nothing.
Pre Glazer = United had ZERO debt....May 12th 2005 = United suddenly had £6/700m debt with interest payments of £50m+ to be paid by us/you fans.
You may not know but the Glazers are not even meeting the interest payments due.
Yes United made £50m profit last year and some fans thinks that was great......but it didn't even pay the interest on the debt.
Some of us knew the way they operated at Tampa Bay Bucs and they have done exactly the same at United.

Spot on Sal!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,730 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
SALFORD RED said:
In an ideal situation the fans would own United but that's never going to happen. :(

A lot of people think that thousands of Reds hate the Glazers because they are American.
Couldn't be further from the truth if they tried.

The hatred comes from the way they took over, ie bank loans of 100s of millions, putting the payments of the debt onto the fans, refusing to even allow supporters groups a small say on anything, in effect saying fcuk the fans they are nothing.
Pre Glazer = United had ZERO debt....May 12th 2005 = United suddenly had £6/700m debt with interest payments of £50m+ to be paid by us/you fans.
You may not know but the Glazers are not even meeting the interest payments due.
Yes United made £50m profit last year and some fans thinks that was great......but it didn't even pay the interest on the debt.
Some of us knew the way they operated at Tampa Bay Bucs and they have done exactly the same at United.

If another buyer bought United with HIS own money, wiping out the debt, it would be a thousand times better for everyone concerned.

scottsati made a great post which i totally agree with...

one thing would say is i like the way randy learner has run villa, put in cash, hasnt raised ticket prices more than is reasonable, hasn't stuck his nose in where it ain't wanted, donated to charity-with the shirt sponsors etc, paid for fans to go to some away games and lastly notice how he doesn't hog the limelight or has to be the big I am.

If a buyer was like that for United, plus allowed the fans to buy shares (small stake say 5-10% in total) to give real fans just the smallest voice, then i wouldn't care where he came from.

.


You make a great point there SAL and a very valid one too you have made me rethink my own thread.

Maybe sometimes I think with my heart rather than my head . Like you say in a ideal world we would own the club but in real world we dont .

I dont like the idea of a billionare taking our club and controling the transfers and desicions . But the Glazers are screwing the club up .
 

·
He wipes front to back
Joined
·
27,654 Posts
mufc-ok said:
I for one hate modern football. I wish i lived in the 70s and 80s. :(
when liverpool were winning everything and we worked three day weeks inflation was running at 27 per cent and you were forced to wear flares and wing collars -and where a man with a job was on strike more than at work . i can almost smell the candles from the power cuts now .

The good old days !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
When did start the commercialization in British football?

My answer would be, when the Premiership was founded and Sky Sports started to broadcast the EPL in the 1990s.

It became more and more to a money machine which we (supporters) lost the control about our football clubs. This are not more our football clubs it belongs to rich Russians or Americans who have got more control than the fans.
 

·
He wipes front to back
Joined
·
27,654 Posts
ayrton-senna3 said:
When did start the commercialization in British football?

My answer would be, when the Premiership was founded and Sky Sports started to broadcast the EPL in the 1990s.

It became more and more to a money machine which we (supporters) lost the control about our football clubs. This are not more our football clubs it belongs to rich Russians or Americans who have got more control than the fans.
if you watch matches from the sixties you notice that there are no advertising boards round pitch . United had a two foot high white picket fence --- no adverts on shirts --- it really started at the end of the sixties when match of the day became popular companies realised they could get products seen at football grounds relatively cheaply .

Clubs realised shirt fronts could earn revenue --- in the early days of shirt sponsors all the sponsor did to get name on kit was to provide the strips so clubs didnt have the expense !

Sky tv needed something unique to drive take up of its service and it needed to be better than what we had at start of nineties for it to work .

I well remember the half time cheerleaders and firework rubbish they tried for a couple of years back then ---- the girls got dogs abuse .

The extra cash they paid allowed the taylor report recommendations to be put through to full effect getting rid of all terracing .

The slow but sure influx of foriegn stars bought glamour --and then the improved policing and the hoolies getting loved up on exstacy rather than battering each other at football enabled the middle classes to start watching .

The break up of the tv stranglehold is the only way to really cut the wages etc etc as once 8 or nine different channels have live footy why would any one of them pay a lot for it ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,207 Posts
razz1979 said:
The clubs that these grossly wealthy people buy are just playthings for them & they surely don't expect to make any money investing in them.

Surely turning City into a successful side would be the ultimate bragging right for their owner but rather than just bringing in an influx of superstars any team needs a solid base to start with, which is where they will fall down.

When Abramovich bought Chelsea they already had a reasonably strong squad but they squandered money on players past their peak (Shevchenko), over-inflated transfer fees (Essien, Drogba) & ridiculous wages (Terry, Lampard, Ballack). Clubs like City & Chelsea will never make a decent profit and providing nothing drastic happens to the owners fortune & they manage some sort of success, then that is ok for them.

There are examples of wealthy owners having good business plans that enable them to live within their means, like United, Aston Villa & QPR. Granted, we have splashed the cash but when you consider our income through merchandising alone these purchases are sensible ones that enhance the squad and increase our success & therefore our prize monies. Our club works within a structure which means that despite all the criticism the Glazers came in for from both rivals and our own support, the history of the club remains intact.

Lerner at Villa leaves the manager to run the team & provides the funds where they are neccesary without breaking the bank and with a prudent manager such as O'Neill in charge this is proving quite successful too.

QPR have a potentially massive amount of funds behind them but want to become the top flight team they used to be before they start chucking the wonger at the manager.

In answer to the OP, I would Love to have a successful United team without the debt but if it meant selling out to one of these playboy Billionaires, I'll take the Glazers any day of the week.

Thank for saving me a post! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
haggler said:
if you watch matches from the sixties you notice that there are no advertising boards round pitch . United had a two foot high white picket fence --- no adverts on shirts --- it really started at the end of the sixties when match of the day became popular companies realised they could get products seen at football grounds relatively cheaply .

Clubs realised shirt fronts could earn revenue --- in the early days of shirt sponsors all the sponsor did to get name on kit was to provide the strips so clubs didnt have the expense !

Sky tv needed something unique to drive take up of its service and it needed to be better than what we had at start of nineties for it to work .

I well remember the half time cheerleaders and firework rubbish they tried for a couple of years back then ---- the girls got dogs abuse .

The extra cash they paid allowed the taylor report recommendations to be put through to full effect getting rid of all terracing .

The slow but sure influx of foriegn stars bought glamour --and then the improved policing and the hoolies getting loved up on exstacy rather than battering each other at football enabled the middle classes to start watching .

The break up of the tv stranglehold is the only way to really cut the wages etc etc as once 8 or nine different channels have live footy why would any one of them pay a lot for it ?
I know the commercialization started in the 1970s but we lost the control in the1990s.

Yes, Hillsborough was the worst tragedy in UK football but to be honest it wasn't the fault by the stadiums it was the fault by the police who let them more and more fans in the stadium.

I prefer the football of the 1970s and 1980s without the superstars more than the football of now.

And I think that Sky Sports has more influence than the football clubs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,547 Posts
haggler said:
when liverpool were winning everything and we worked three day weeks inflation was running at 27 per cent and you were forced to wear flares and wing collars -and where a man with a job was on strike more than at work . i can almost smell the candles from the power cuts now .

The good old days !!!

What team did Arthur Scargill play for? :eek: :rolleyes:

Good old glorious days the 70's and 80's.:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
ayrton-senna3 said:
I know the commercialization started in the 1970s but we lost the control in the1990s.

Yes, Hillsborough was the worst tragedy in UK football but to be honest it wasn't the fault by the stadiums it was the fault by the police who let them more and more fans in the stadium.

I prefer the football of the 1970s and 1980s without the superstars more than the football of now.

And I think that Sky Sports has more influence than the football clubs.
Totally agree m8, Football is not a working class mans game anymore.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top