Jump to content

Football Focus

Otta

By Otta
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Parkdrive

Parkdrive

Posted
Posted

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Arsenal will one day have a similar problem when

> Wenger leaves, I hope you're taking notes "

>

> oh gawd is this ever true. It's why I have been so

> anti all the anti-Wenger sentiment amongst (not a

> small) contingent of Arsenal fans

>

> that said, I expect we will get Pep to replace

> him, so I'm not tooooo worried


Yeah we're taking notes from how NOT to hand over the reins to a complete numpty

Parkdrive

Parkdrive

Posted
Posted

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Arsenal will one day have a similar problem when

> Wenger leaves, I hope you're taking notes "

>

>

> Arsenal haven't won a trophy other than the

> Emirates Cup for 9 years. I don't think the fall

> will be that painful.



Unlike a team that hasn't won a title since the days of black and white eh titch? Spurs, the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted

Hayes' unstoppable strike ended Fraser Forster's 1,256-minute run without letting in a league goal.


Goal is 44 seconds into video:


http://sport.stv.tv/football/265464-neil-lennon-says-referee-ruined-game-as-celtic-go-down-to-aberdeen/


If you are not interested in Scottish football, please don't bother telling me again.

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> that said, I expect we will get Pep to replace

> him, so I'm not tooooo worried


That's some expectation SJ, having said that Pep did leave Barca after burning himself out there, so the same might happen at Bayern in 3-5 years time. Playing style he would certainly be less of an upheaval than Moyes is proving to be...

Parkdrive

Parkdrive

Posted
Posted

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hayes' unstoppable strike ended Fraser Forster's

> 1,256-minute run without letting in a league

> goal.

>

> Goal is 44 seconds into video:

>

> http://sport.stv.tv/football/265464-neil-lennon-sa

> ys-referee-ruined-game-as-celtic-go-down-to-aberde

> en/

>

> If you are not interested in Scottish football,

> please don't bother telling me again.



Ok I won't

SCSB79

SCSB79

Posted
Posted

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hayes' unstoppable strike ended Fraser Forster's

> 1,256-minute run without letting in a league

> goal.

>

> Goal is 44 seconds into video:

>

> http://sport.stv.tv/football/265464-neil-lennon-sa

> ys-referee-ruined-game-as-celtic-go-down-to-aberde

> en/

>

> If you are not interested in Scottish football,

> please don't bother telling me again.



I am.

Sum up your failure of a season for me MM?!

Parkdrive

Parkdrive

Posted
Posted
I love the reasoning put forward in some quarters for the reason United stumped ?300k a week for shrek. Primarily the argument seems to be its cheaper than finding a comparable player for the same outlay. If that's the case, how come they didn't try to hang on to Ronaldo, possibly the best player in the world? Was he not as valuable to the squad?
Parkdrive

Parkdrive

Posted
Posted

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What Ots said. In the final year of his contract,

> Rooney would've beeen worth ?20m tops this summer.

> Real Madrid offered ?80m for Ronaldo, cash...you

> do the maths.


And yet the likes of Negredo was available for 20 million if Rooney had gone? Perhaps he didn't believe in the Moyes project, and the way many of the players are performing, neither do they.

StraferJack

StraferJack

Posted
Posted

You can make a case for either side of the Rooney signing and I have sympathy for both sides of that argument


By I definitely lean towards the ?they didn?t have much choice, but it?s going to cost them big time?


I don?t believe Rooney will be any better than 1-2 years at top of his game

Rooney is not the man to consistently lead a team (he has matured plenty over last 5 years or so, but not enough to be That Guy)

Have Man Utd got the money? If not, then that?s a huge drain on cashflow. If yes then many a younger player (especially targets) will look at that figure and want parity


I think it?s all very unfortunate

Parkdrive

Parkdrive

Posted
Posted

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can make a case for either side of the Rooney

> signing and I have sympathy for both sides of that

> argument

>

> By I definitely lean towards the ?they didn?t have

> much choice, but it?s going to cost them big

> time?

>

> I don?t believe Rooney will be any better than 1-2

> years at top of his game

> Rooney is not the man to consistently lead a team

> (he has matured plenty over last 5 years or so,

> but not enough to be That Guy)

> Have Man Utd got the money? If not, then that?s a

> huge drain on cashflow. If yes then many a younger

> player (especially targets) will look at that

> figure and want parity

>

> I think it?s all very unfortunate


Said it before very desperate. I don't think it's unfortunate, it's a lack of foresight and the willingness to grasp the nettle that is Rooney, he's been indulged far too much by Yanited. Can't see many clubs putting up with that, and was hugely surprised when SAF let shrek take the piss a couple of years back.

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

There will be no problem with the cashflow SJ. Rooney's additional wage costs amount to ?11.7m over 4 and a half years, smallfry when you factor in the projected additional income quoted from the likes of Sky, shirt suppliers and sponsors etc. Rooney also brings in a lot of commercial revenue to the club, especially from abroad, which is hard to quantify. Whether people here like him or not, abroad Rooney is seen as 'that guy' for Utd and England.

Not being in the CL won't be a financial hardship either, and judging by Monoco's experience, players will sign for non CL teams if the money is right. Not that I'm advocating any of this, I would much prefer if all the extra money that is sloshing around in the gane went on reducing ticket prices, but that ain't gonna happen...

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> projected income could fall drastically if the

> team remains where it is


Unlikely in the short term. New shirt sponsors Chevrolet have already stated that the new shirt deal will not be affected by Utd not being in the CL. And currently there's a bidding war between the shirt manufacturers.


> what about new signings - won't they be in the

> same wage ballpark?



I guess it depends who they are. A Falcao maybe, but not the likes of Kroos and Reus. Unless a new signing is commercially as attractive as Rooney, then I don't believe they would get parity with his wages.



> Assuming Glazers do spend of course


As much as I dislike them, the Glazers are astute businessmen and they know they now have to invest, it's a basic business model. It's just not in their interest to see the value of the club drop...

titch juicy

titch juicy

Posted
Posted

The only large income stream cut off to United will be champs league money. Overseas revenue will still be huge. It takes more than one season outside of the CL to dissuade overseas fans. Just ask Tottenham. Despite decades in the wilderness we're still the 14th richest club in Europe and a lot of that is due to overseas revenue.


A big name is a big name when it comes down to it, regardless of success.


United will have no problems attracting the worlds best players if they are prepared to spend. Mata being a good example.

Millhaven

Millhaven

Posted
Posted

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> United will have no problems attracting the worlds

> best players if they are prepared to spend. Mata

> being a good example.


I think that is a very rosey view. Mata, a vanity signing if there ever was one, was almost handed to them by Chelsea. If there were clubs all queuing up for the special Juan's signature I would probably agree with you. However, they weren't so Mata was practically a gift (albeit a quite expensive one). I don't think Old Trafford is the draw it used to be even when Ferguson was still in charge. Been a long time they were the first and foremost club on any young talent's list for that dream move. Barcelona, Real Madrid were always fierce competitors but City, Chelsea, and now the rich French teams are making the supply line a little too thin.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted
I recall United were the richest club in England even during the 20+ barren years before SAF recovered them. So I think they will always be wealthy, but where you have an owner with > 50% control then you never know for sure what proportion of the finances make their way to the pitch.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...