Summer of discontent...

Manchester United chat
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 26788
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

bman2 wrote:
11 months ago
Sid wrote:
11 months ago
About Barca's debt, it's been the case for decades. They're never gonna have to pay it off cos they're essentially nationalised. As Rant Ed once said football clubs are like museums; prestigious, full of history and terrible businesses. Museums aren't run for profit, they're there to educate & entertain. So they spend 350,000 on a 2000 year old bit of pottery people spend 5 seconds looking at in the museum. Bad business, but fulfils their primary purpose of entertaining and educating.

It's the same with football. They're shit businesses cos all the money is reinvested in wages, transfers and running costs (as it should be). It's only when you have owners that want dividends, and in our case massive refinancing, that you get the problems we have cos it means extracting shitloads. Literally more than a billion. And that's going to impact on the pitch and thus the entertainment.
Easier to justify spending public money on history than shovelling cash into the pockets of some 20 year old spitroasting drunk girls in Mykonos just because he’s good at kicking a football...
It's not public money though, it's money the club generated itself going back into the club rather than being shovelled into the pockets of some 50 odd year old american rich cunts and bankers who spitroast drunk girls etc which is what's happening at United
fat maradona
Legend
Posts: 1200
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

Sid wrote:
11 months ago
bman2 wrote:
11 months ago
Sid wrote:
11 months ago
About Barca's debt, it's been the case for decades. They're never gonna have to pay it off cos they're essentially nationalised. As Rant Ed once said football clubs are like museums; prestigious, full of history and terrible businesses. Museums aren't run for profit, they're there to educate & entertain. So they spend 350,000 on a 2000 year old bit of pottery people spend 5 seconds looking at in the museum. Bad business, but fulfils their primary purpose of entertaining and educating.

It's the same with football. They're shit businesses cos all the money is reinvested in wages, transfers and running costs (as it should be). It's only when you have owners that want dividends, and in our case massive refinancing, that you get the problems we have cos it means extracting shitloads. Literally more than a billion. And that's going to impact on the pitch and thus the entertainment.
Easier to justify spending public money on history than shovelling cash into the pockets of some 20 year old spitroasting drunk girls in Mykonos just because he’s good at kicking a football...
It's not public money though, it's money the club generated itself going back into the club rather than being shovelled into the pockets of some 50 odd year old american rich cunts and bankers who spitroast drunk girls etc which is what's happening at United
And the common denominator in both of these shit scenarios are the drunk girls getting spitroasted.....slaaaaaags....
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 8913
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

As long as someone is getting spit roasted, the system is working...
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 8913
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

And I didn’t specify it had to be girls, so that’s not sexist or homophobic.
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 8913
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

In all seriousness, I wonder if Ole hasn’t hurt his position with the Glazers. It sounds like he insisted on Sancho, and we probably all know about it because he was egged on by the other old United boys in the media. I think insisting on a megastar might not have impressed his bosses. They could have kept Jose for that.

When you think about it, the small expenditure in Jose’s last summer was a sign that the board had lost faith and weren’t going to bankroll him. I think they like Ole a lot more and have a much less confrontational relationship with him. But business is about money, and what the board has done with its money this window looks a lot like what they did with Jose. It undermines Ole’s whole narrative about making stars not buying them.

This summer looks like a breakdown where the club was fixated on Sancho and that got in way of doing other business. It’s also riled up the supporters. If Ole shoulders the blame for the fixation on Sancho, his position will be weakened. There are other wide forwards out there. In fact you could probably play Fernandes there. Fucking hell, Ferguson played Fletcher wide right sometimes, and won.

The Glazers aren’t total idiots. They know the difference between 80 points and 66 points. And they know how much is spent on players.
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 8913
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

And if the board are considering Poch, they should move before Chelsea does. Because Chelsea have spent 250M to go right back to the top table this season, and they’ll dump Lamps if they think he’s not up to it.
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 8913
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

It’s really depressing how there’s a sense of crisis around the club already. Talk of Ole getting the sack, Pogba wanting to leave, and all the rest, is already rampant. For good reason, because these things are all very believable.

The club just lurches on from one crisis to another. Parasites at the wheel. We know how it feels.
User avatar
bman2
Legend
Posts: 8913
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

So the premier league decided to show some of the matches, the ones not already televised, on pay-per-view at £15 a pop. Sounds a bit overoptimistic to me, that price is larcenous, and I can’t it getting that much take-up from supporters.

Some journalists are reporting that Woodward argued very strongly against it at the meeting, and that Unites voted against it. Apparently Woodward said they should be able to let season ticket holders and supporters watch them for free, or something like that.

It might be that PR team at work, but sounds ok.
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 26788
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

bman2 wrote:
11 months ago
So the premier league decided to show some of the matches, the ones not already televised, on pay-per-view at £15 a pop. Sounds a bit overoptimistic to me, that price is larcenous, and I can’t it getting that much take-up from supporters.

Some journalists are reporting that Woodward argued very strongly against it at the meeting, and that Unites voted against it. Apparently Woodward said they should be able to let season ticket holders and supporters watch them for free, or something like that.

It might be that PR team at work, but sounds ok.
Yeah that will almost definitely be pro Woodward PR / briefing at work.

The 15 quid a game is a piss take when you think we're literally in the process of millions being made unemployed due to coronavirus / Tory fucking it all up. It looks like we're very close to a second national lockdown too which will fuck even more businesses and make even more people unemployed and poorer.
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 26788
Joined: 8 years ago

11 months ago

It was definitely bollocks from Ed. Only Leicester actually voted against the move.
Post Reply