Football : Season 2007/2008

[pedantic]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

Why were your supporters so against it then?

Linky

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]

Originally Posted by pedantic

Oh! ONLY £500 was it. That makes it ok then.

Why were your supporters so against it then?

We didn't like the idea of it and I was one of the supporters protesting

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

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]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sherer

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

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]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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 ----------

Originally Posted by sherer

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]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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?

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

And how much did you pay for Ferdinand and Veron? definately not the going rates at that time.

Was that the 90s?