Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2018-2019 Football Thread
- Thread starter Lord Blackadder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The club have for years been pretty up front about placing a heavy emphasis on corporate partnerships and growing their global fanbase. Under Ferguson they could pretty much take success on the pitch for granted, allowing them to focus on the moneymaking aspects of the "business".
But now, after Ferguson, I think it is fair to question whether the club suits are really taking the football side of things seriously enough. From the outside it looks like they just hired the highest profile manager they could get their hands on and then bought a random assortment of the most expensive players...is this the result of serious strategic thinking?
Mourinho is making his usual third season complaints, so what is the club's long term plan? They aren't going to be short of money any time soon, but almost all of their closest rivals in the league and in Europe are either as rich or richer than they are...money alone is not going to cut it.
Manchester United is not an attractive option for players looking for a new club.
You'll get bad mouthed by your manager, then forced to play dull negative football.
And we can all see the manager isn't going to last the season. So who wants to go to a club where you don't know who'll be there by the end of the season and how you will fit in with their plans.
You'll get bad mouthed by your manager, then forced to play dull negative football.
And we can all see the manager isn't going to last the season. So who wants to go to a club where you don't know who'll be there by the end of the season and how you will fit in with their plans.
I think it has been obvious for years (albeit masked somewhat by continued success under a magisterial manager, Sir Alex Ferguson) that Manchester United have been seen as a vehicle to deliver profits for the Glaziers.
They are not interested in football, - not remotely - the way in which they financed the takeover bid should have served as a wake up call - for them, the club is merely a delivery device to enable the further delivery of profits for the owners.
Thus, unlike some other clubs, which are vanity projects (and thus, winning and being seen to win matters as matter of personal pride), this is irrelevant to the Glaziers who are only interested in winning insofar as it delivers profits.
So, United's problems go far further than a team that does not play as a unit, or a corrosively negative (and I think morosely destructive - if formerly gifted) manager; it goes all the way up to the owners, who are not remotely invested emotionally or personally with the club, but merely view it as a profit delivery vehicle.
Agreed, but - as I attempt to argue above - it goes deeper than that.
Well, @Apple fanboy, today's edition of The Guardian have a positive profile of West Ham that you might find of interest to read.
They have been publishing a series of profiles of Premiership clubs, done alphabetically, two a day for the past fortnight - i.e. Monday to Friday.
They have been publishing a series of profiles of Premiership clubs, done alphabetically, two a day for the past fortnight - i.e. Monday to Friday.
The simply things I miss from home, sitting on the tube reading the paper (The Guardian, Evening Standard, The Mirror, and yes, The Sun, page 3!).
Anyway, all Premiership teams can stop talking now. Time to get on with it. Then again, I guess Loans can still happen till 31st August, right?
PS: I think West Ham got a steal with Wilshere and Lucas...
Anyway, all Premiership teams can stop talking now. Time to get on with it. Then again, I guess Loans can still happen till 31st August, right?
PS: I think West Ham got a steal with Wilshere and Lucas...
As far as I understand it, loans can still happen until August 31; the Championship (i.e. League below the Premiership and lower leagues) can buy and sell until August 31, and, in the Premiership, exits, departures, loans and sales to Europe (but no purchases, or acquisitions from) Europe can take place until August 31
As for The Sun, I hold Liverpool's view on that utter rag of an apology for a publication.
Re Arsenal, I am also not entirely happy (actually, not at all happy), to see that Stan Kroenke is about to take full ownership of the club.
This will mean that there will be no oversight in what is happening at the club, no AGMs, and no fan shareholders any longer, and exceedingly flexible arrangements and deadlines to submit financial accounts at Companies House.
This is because once Usmanov and his 30% shareholding has been bought out, Kronke will have the option - which he will exercise and which is allowed under English law when one person, or body, owns more than 90% of the shares - to compulsorily buy out the reminder, leaving him with 100% of the shares and answerable to nobody else.
Worth noting is that Kronke has not spent so much as one single penny (or cent) on the club since he first took a significant shareholding, and only shareholder outrage put an end to his little habit of awarding himself generous sums in what he quaintly termed "consultancy fees" , a habit that may well resume in future.
This will mean that there will be no oversight in what is happening at the club, no AGMs, and no fan shareholders any longer, and exceedingly flexible arrangements and deadlines to submit financial accounts at Companies House.
This is because once Usmanov and his 30% shareholding has been bought out, Kronke will have the option - which he will exercise and which is allowed under English law when one person, or body, owns more than 90% of the shares - to compulsorily buy out the reminder, leaving him with 100% of the shares and answerable to nobody else.
Worth noting is that Kronke has not spent so much as one single penny (or cent) on the club since he first took a significant shareholding, and only shareholder outrage put an end to his little habit of awarding himself generous sums in what he quaintly termed "consultancy fees" , a habit that may well resume in future.
That’s my view on it. Also wouldn’t Adidas bring a lot more money to the table than Puma? I just think Adidas has a way bigger network than Puma could ever think about. Seems like better exposure for Arsenal.
I think each of the two companies were (originally) founded by a pair of brothers.
Nevertheless, Adidas do strike me as having grater exposure and reach, but, in truth, I couldn't really give two hoots who sponsors the kit and footwear as long as they are not engaged in criminal or illegal or unethical activity - on the one hand - and produce high quality goods, on the other.
Very true, although I buy a Real Madrid kit every season, and I prefer Adidas and Nike to anyone in terms of quality. I haven’t had a Puma product in forever, but the quality is no where close Adidas or Nike. I think the money for the club is so much better with Adidas and Nike. If you can get either of them as a club, I see that as a win.
Heavily linked yes, but nothing came of it
Not too fond of the idea that we're moving from Puma to Adidas (Arsenal). I have always seen Adidas as a Chelsea sponsor and no one else. I know they support other clubs, that's not the point.
Anyway, I will get over it
I have little concern (or interest) in what Chelsea wear, or in who pays them to wear it. If they wear similar gear to Arsenal, sponsored by the same manufacturer or company, what of it?
If this deal gives Arsenal better equipment (footwear etc) than they have had to date, and which allows them to win (or draw) matches, then I shall rest content.
Thanks. I'll see if I can find it online later.
I'm in the honeymoon period of the season. When you are full of optimism and in live with your new signings and football in general.
[doublepost=1533918862][/doublepost]
Agree!
It has nothing to do with footwear for the players. They are all sponsored by brands on their own.
So, the club and the respective individual players are identified - possibly - with different brands. A curious world.
Yeah the kits and all the team stuff is with the brand that the club decides to go with, but the shoes are part of the players sponsorships. Like Ronaldo is a Nike guy but his club is Adidas. Messi is Adidas and Barcelona are Nike. It’s like is Baseball, the players have shoe and glove deals separate from the team. All about the money. Those deals are where the players get all their money.
And it is not as though the salaries at the top of the game are in any way parsimonious.
Oh not at all, but I think Ronaldo’s Nike deal is something like 90 million a year or so. It’s insane.
Edit: never mind it’s even more than that
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...e-deal-is-a-bargain-for-sportswear-giant/amp/
My exact thoughts also.
Clear handball, yes, but that is the sort of break that my brother (the one who does not support Manchester United) would describe as a "fluke".
Leicester had some good chances in the first half and arguably the better team. But when those don't go in, you kind of think it will be United night.
Yes, but having sold Mahrez, (who, admittedly, wished to depart to pastures new), they don't have a clinical finisher.
Good chances need to be converted.
Yes, they are the better team, (and Manchester United continue that flukey pattern that has favoured them for years) but they have to make possession count and show that they can convert chances.
Elsewhere, I did write 'expletive deleted'. Boo. Hiss.
Not the result I wanted, and not what Leicester deserved (but you have to put your chances away) but, yes, @JamesMike will be more than happy, I suspect.