Cable Forum
Page 80 of 89 « First 307076777879 80 81828384 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Sport (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=88)
-   -   Football : Season 2007/2008 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33618963)

pedantic 02-05-2008 10:52
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34542900)
Oh and incidentally it was £500, get your facts right and these days I bet there are fans up and down the country who would more than willingly pay the equivalent of £50 a year the guarantee their season ticket for 10 years
Oh! ONLY £500 was it. That makes it ok then. :rolleyes:

Why were your supporters so against it then?

Linky

Quote:
The scheme was a failure, as it only gave a minimal guarantee for the purchase of future season tickets in return for a non-returnable £500 'loan'...
Doesn't quite look as straight forward as you suggest now does it?

And no, I don't know any supporters who would pay a supplement to guarantee a season ticket, prices are inflated enough as it is.

TheDaddy 02-05-2008 11:05
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedantic (Post 34542905)
Oh! ONLY £500 was it. That makes it ok then. :rolleyes:

Why were your supporters so against it then?
We didn't like the idea of it and I was one of the supporters protesting

Quote:
Doesn't quite look as straight forward as you suggest now does it?
Actually is was, I had one, for about an hour, thanks mum

Quote:
And no, I don't know any supporters who would pay a supplement to guarantee a season ticket, prices are inflated enough as it is.
I think you are wrong, especially if the club in question has a waiting list for season tickets.

Russ 02-05-2008 11:27
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34542900)
Not really
How about "United were already the most successful club in the Premiership before Glazier came along, whereas Chelsea were annual also-rans before Roman turned up" - get it now?

TheDaddy 02-05-2008 11:30
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34542926)
How about "United were already the most successful club in the Premiership before Glazier came along, whereas Chelsea were annual also-rans before Roman turned up" - get it now?
Interesting, you weren't all that successful when you were breaking transfer records for the likes of Bryan Roson though were you?

Russ 02-05-2008 11:38
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34542928)
Interesting, you weren't all that successful when you were breaking transfer records for the likes of Bryan Roson though were you?
Not really all that interesting, success came once SAF started bringing kids through the ranks - which, come to think about it, doesn't really require millions in transfer fees.

But going back to my question - get it now?

Saaf_laandon_mo 02-05-2008 11:44
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34542933)
Not really all that interesting, success came once SAF started bringing kids through the ranks - which, come to think about it, doesn't really require millions in transfer fees.

But going back to my question - get it now?
Didnt the arrival of Cantona prove to be a kickstart to the trophies?

And ROy Keane was pretty instrumental too wasnt he?

TheDaddy 02-05-2008 11:46
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34542933)
Not really all that interesting, success came once SAF started bringing kids through the ranks - which, come to think about it, doesn't really require millions in transfer fees.

But going back to my question - get it now?
There is nothing to 'get' Russ, you think it makes a difference were the cash comes from and I don't, you can harp on about being successful but we have already established your club was breaking transfer records for the likes of Robson and Pallister when you hadn't actually been that successful at all

Russ 02-05-2008 14:10
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34542937)
Didnt the arrival of Cantona prove to be a kickstart to the trophies?

And ROy Keane was pretty instrumental too wasnt he?
Yes as was Schmeichal and the 'kids'...in other words players SAF brought in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
There is nothing to 'get' Russ, you think it makes a difference were the cash comes from and I don't, you can harp on about being successful but we have already established your club was breaking transfer records for the likes of Robson and Pallister when you hadn't actually been that successful at all
Did we go on to almost dominate the league as soon as they came in? As you'll be aware - no we didn't. It took years of hard graft, not a sugar daddy's billions.

Saaf_laandon_mo 02-05-2008 14:28
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34543018)
Yes as was Schmeichal and the 'kids'...in other words players SAF brought in.



Did we go on to almost dominate the league as soon as they came in? As you'll be aware - no we didn't. It took years of hard graft, not a sugar daddy's billions.
The majority of your current team has been bought in. Hargreaves, Ferdinand, Nani, Ronaldo, VDS, Tevez, Carrick and definately not bought up through the ranks.

Looking at the latest revenue figures I see that Man Utd are not that far ahead of Chelsea in terms of revenue generated, a significant difference is you have a bigger overdraft, whislt Roman writes off ours. So in effect you are financing current transfers with the banks money, not your own, and hoping that future success pays itself off. Roman is using his own money to build future success, and he got immediate success as a bonus. the Glaziers are using bank overdrafts in the same way. Your spending is not limited to your revenue.

Russ 02-05-2008 14:40
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34543043)
The majority of your current team has been bought in. Hargreaves, Ferdinand, Nani, Ronaldo, VDS, Tevez, Carrick and definately not bought up through the ranks.

Looking at the latest revenue figures I see that Man Utd are not that far ahead of Chelsea in terms of revenue generated, a significant difference is you have a bigger overdraft, whislt Roman writes off ours. So in effect you are financing current transfers with the banks money, not your own, and hoping that future success pays itself off. Roman is using his own money to build future success, and he got immediate success as a bonus. the Glaziers are using bank overdrafts in the same way. Your spending is not limited to your revenue.
Is it really all that hard to understand? The majority of United’s first time at the moment were bought, no question about that but the money used was earned by the success of yesteryear’s teams! We dominated the 90s, this was due to an unbeatable youth policy and players bought at going rates and not (then) hyper-millions, which the few exceptions of Cole and Pallister.

Chelsea's current success is soley down to the Russian appearing from nowhere. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just as long as the fact is acknowledged.

sherer 02-05-2008 14:44
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
didn't it take Chelsea 2-3 years to win the title even after Roman came in. First they had Ranieri and then he left before they bough in Jose. It's not just the money but also down to the manager too, although without both I don't think it is possible to win the title anymore.

I think what TheDaddy is trying to say that it doesn't really matter, from his point of view, where the money comes from the fact is we have used that to further our success

Saaf_laandon_mo 02-05-2008 14:55
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34543059)
didn't it take Chelsea 2-3 years to win the title even after Roman came in. First they had Ranieri and then he left before they bough in Jose. It's not just the money but also down to the manager too, although without both I don't think it is possible to win the title anymore.

I think what TheDaddy is trying to say that it doesn't really matter, from his point of view, where the money comes from the fact is we have used that to further our success
Thats another thing people seem to forget. It could also be argued that arguably the big name signings have not contributed to title success eg Sheva & Ballack. The manager should definately take credit for a lot of success, but then the Man U fans will say well Jose was bought too.

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34543054)
Is it really all that hard to understand? The majority of United’s first time at the moment were bought, no question about that but the money used was earned by the success of yesteryear’s teams! We dominated the 90s, this was due to an unbeatable youth policy and players bought at going rates and not (then) hyper-millions, which the few exceptions of Cole and Pallister.

Chelsea's current success is soley down to the Russian appearing from nowhere. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just as long as the fact is acknowledged.
No the money used for buying your current squad is got by extending your overdraft. And how much did you pay for Ferdinand and Veron? definately not the going rates at that time.

Russ 02-05-2008 14:58
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34543067)
Thats another thing people seem to forget. It could also be argued that arguably the big name signings have not contributed to title success eg Sheva & Ballack. The manager should definately take credit for a lot of success, but then the Man U fans will say well Jose was bought too.
On the subject of Shev and Ballack (let's not forget Veron too...) Roman was like a child in a sweetshop, trying different sweets and throwing away the ones he didn't like. United have never had the luxury of working that way. As with Jose no-one will deny he is talented however I have a feeling the lure of all this newly aquired (and bought) talent, plus an almost 'open-chequebook' mentality probably played a big part in his deciding to take the job.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by sherer (Post 34543059)
I think what TheDaddy is trying to say that it doesn't really matter, from his point of view, where the money comes from the fact is we have used that to further our success
And to a degree I will concur with that - however surely anyone can see that comparing where the money came from with United and Chelsea is unfair?

sherer 02-05-2008 15:08
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34543072)
On the subject of Shev and Ballack (let's not forget Veron too...) Roman was like a child in a sweetshop, trying different sweets and throwing away the ones he didn't like. United have never had the luxury of working that way. As with Jose no-one will deny he is talented however I have a feeling the lure of all this newly aquired (and bought) talent, plus an almost 'open-chequebook' mentality probably played a big part in his deciding to take the job.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------



And to a degree I will concur with that - however surely anyone can see that comparing where the money came from with United and Chelsea is unfair?
We have bought our fair share of duds and for alot of money too.

Bellion £2 m
Djemba - Djemba
Kleberson - £ 6.5 m
Veron £ 28
Forlan - £8 - although I think he could have worked out if we kept him

Even Saha at 12 isn't really a success.

Sure it isn't the same comparing our money to Chelsea but I can also see why fans of Charlon and West Ham or others don't care at all where our money comes from either

Russ 02-05-2008 15:08
Re: Football : Season 2007/2008
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34543067)
No the money used for buying your current squad is got by extending your overdraft.
What gave the bank confidence to give us an extension?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34543067)
And how much did you pay for Ferdinand and Veron? definately not the going rates at that time.
Was that the 90s?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:13.
Page 80 of 89 « First 307076777879 80 81828384 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum