Airtricity 11 vs Man. Utd - **MOD NOTE POST 457**

homerjay2005

the attendance last night was a bit puzzling. it gave it out as 49,800.

now, the stadium was almost full, but if 50,000 is the capacity, then theres no way there was only 200 empty seats.

most of the general sale tickets were sold out except one small patch in upper west, but considering the corporate and premium level seats were not fully populated, i would estimate that there were 2,000 empty seats roughly.

so, is the capacity actually 52,000 or did they bump up teh attendance a little?

prinz

Don't know why the 'who were you shouting for last night' is getting so much attention. Maybe it was only the section I was in but the vast majority of the fans in the Aviva were shouting for both teams. It was an exhibition match, nothing more. People wanted to see good football not bitch about the result one way or another. One minute it was Rooney, Rooney!, the next it was Ireland, Ireland.. The LOI team just didn't provide the spark to cheer them on as much as United did... so it seemed like people were cheering on United at the expense of the LOI XI.

5ForKeeps

parker kent wrote: »

I have always thought it was as Mitch describes. It is basically a sponsorship deal in effect. This is the BBC report when United and Nike agreed the deal. The boycott is in line with MUST asking United fans to avoid any of United's sponsors as that will not please the sponsors which would put the Glazers under corporate pressure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1005794.stm

That was from 2000 you signed a new contract with Nike last season.

homerjay2005

5ForKeeps wrote: »

That was from 2000 you signed a new contract with Nike last season.

nope, we didnt. that deal runs until 2015. and Nike have complete control over all Uniteds merchandising and Retail operations. they even run the club megastores.

Before that deal was signed, uniteds turnover from shirt sales was £21 million, with a £2.1 million profit. this deal covers the same turnover and more (23million) but now is money straight into Uniteds hands. i am sure they have a huge profit at Nike, but this is fully, as far as i am aware, NIkes deal.

5ForKeeps

homerjay2005 wrote: »

nope, we didnt. that deal runs until 2015. and Nike have complete control over all Uniteds merchandising and Retail operations. they even run the club megastores.

Before that deal was signed, uniteds turnover from shirt sales was £21 million, with a £2.1 million profit. this deal covers the same turnover and more (23million) but now is money straight into Uniteds hands. i am sure they have a huge profit at Nike, but this is fully, as far as i am aware, NIkes deal.

Okie dokie.

To put the deal into perspective, it works out at £23.3m a year for United. A statement from the club's plc said: "Manchester United intends to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes". This is likely to include spending on new players, wages and development of United's already extensive international set-up. this from that Independent article in 2000. I think priorities have changed since then with the glazers takeover in 2005.

So Utd have earned over 200 million with Nike on the shirt deal alone.

Ush1

Way off topic at this point but it's surely a good move to not line the pockets of Manchester United sponsors if you don't want the club to get money?

If sales of shirts decrease enough I'd assume Nike will end the deal at the first chance they can thus stopping said income to United.

ntlbell

Pal wrote: »

The League of Ireland was shown up very badly by a complete mismatch in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Well done FAI. I know you have money issues but ffs, have you no foresight or consideration for the wellbeing of Irish football at all ?

A meaningful fixture between two Irish clubs had considerable merit and may not have sold out however the greater good of Irish football would have been better served. The resources and goodwill gained would have gone back into the clubs too where it is needed most.
Isn't that the duty of the custodians of our game ?

In reality, if that wasn't a runner the National Team should have played the opening match.

The IRFU played a meaningless exhibition game between two concocted Irish rugby teams and sold 30,000 tickets while the Dubs played in front of 60,000 at Croker.
Well done IRFU and your supporters.

If the FAI really wanted a circus, they should have got Duffys.

I really think that they just don't care.

Sticking two LOI teams in wouldn't have filled 1/4 of the staduim.

The people who whould have went would have been regular LOI fans.

RTE probably wouldn't have showed it, if they did, the same LOI fans who watch LOI on the box would have watched it and it all would have been a bit pointless.

Do you really think it was an exervise in converting die hard united fans to start turning up to watch fingal et al?

I don't think so

Pal

ntlbell wrote: »

Sticking two LOI teams in wouldn't have filled 1/4 of the staduim.

Agree. It would have probably filled 3/4

ntlbell wrote: »

The people who whould have went would have been regular LOI fans.

Disagree. A lot of people would have gone to see the new stadium.

ntlbell wrote: »

RTE probably wouldn't have showed it

Agree. Setanta would have.

ntlbell wrote: »

Do you really think it was an exervise in converting die hard united fans to start turning up to watch fingal et al?
I don't think so

Agree


I kind of get the feeling you're missing my point.
I have nothing against United.
My gripe is with the FAI.

CR 7

What's with the over analysis of why the match was on? They probably had a look at which teams were available for a pre season game to advertise the new stadium, and thought it'd be a nice touch to involve some irish representation. No pleasing some people.


It seems the non barstoolers would only be happy if it had been a game between the irish team and a team bad enough that they could've drawn the game, but good enough to fill the stadium, and on in the middle of next winter at 3 in the morning, so it doesn't interfere with any other games. And only season ticket holders at every single irish club could attend.

PHB

I must say, I have been there twice now and have found the stadium to be distinctly average.

stovelid

ntlbell wrote: »

Sticking two LOI teams in wouldn't have filled 1/4 of the staduim.

It's not the point.

The FAI ostensibly have a duty to help and promote the local game so I don't really how inviting the best supported English team in the country to leather a local selection that have never played together and have to cope with 40+k Irish supporters cheering on United. Add to that the fact that the players didn't get remunerated properly and the league is in full swing here AND a team like Bohs had a handful of players chasing shadows (and getting injured) days before a potential league decider with us. It's clear the FAI are actually counter-productive to the game here.

And that's not a broadside against friendlies or even United: only that even the United supporters here can surely see that a game like this is not good for the league and only serves to fill the FAI's pocket. That money, in turn, will just be going straight into the staggering debt incurred by the stadium - a stadium whose only real worth to the local game here will be to host the FAI cup final or the odd European game.

jebidiah

has anyone seen any photos of the stadium from last night? i cant seem to find any?

Gone Drinking

PHB wrote: »

I must say, I have been there twice now and have found the stadium to be distinctly average.

Whats average exactly? The design? The capacity? The atmosphere? The facilities?

craggles

PHB wrote: »

I must say, I have been there twice now and have found the stadium to be distinctly average.

Well yeah, it's a bloody flat packed carbon copy of stadiums like the Emirates, Estadio do Dragao, the new one Tottenham will be building, even Wembley, they all have the same overall design theme. I hate it, none of them have any character.

ntlbell

Pal wrote: »

Agree. It would have probably filled 3/4

over 33k+ for a loi game?

Ok, I'm starting to get a better udnerstanding of why you're delusional

Pal wrote: »

Disagree. A lot of people would have gone to see the new stadium.

Yes, next week, to see Ireland against Argie.

Pal wrote: »

Agree. Setanta would have.

For the same crowd that all ready watch it? again, pointless.

Pal wrote: »

I kind of get the feeling you're missing my point.
I have nothing against United.
My gripe is with the FAI.

You seem upset for the FAI showing up the poor standard of football in LOI.

Lets not pit the some of the best of the Irish LOI against any quality side incase we look like a pub side?

The problem was not the oppisition it was this nonsense of the airticity 11

JerryHandbag

What was the reason again for the tiny section behind one of the goals? Three sides of the stadium look superb, but you look over at that section and it just looks very odd.

ntlbell

stovelid wrote: »

It's not the point.

The FAI ostensibly have a duty to help and promote the local game so I don't really how inviting the best supported English team in the country to leather a local selection that have never played together and have to cope with 40+k Irish supporters cheering on United. Add to that the fact that the players didn't get remunerated properly and the league is in full swing here AND a team like Bohs had a handful of players chasing shadows (and getting injured) days before a potential league decider with us. It's clear the FAI are actually counter-productive to the game here.

And that's not a broadside against friendlies or even United: only that even the United supporters here can surely see that a game like this is not good for the league and only serves to fill the FAI's pocket. That money, in turn, will just be going straight into the staggering debt incurred by the stadium - a stadium whose only real worth to the local game here will be to host the FAI cup final or the odd European game.

I agree, my point really was would he have been upset if it was rovers/boh's etc against united and got leathered.

The problem for me was not the fact they were LOI players it was the fact they were patched together last minute job when it would have been more benificial to have rovers/bohs/etc play as a unit who know each other and could have put in a half decent performance.

eithier way would it had a big conversation rate, no.

craggles

JerryHandbag wrote: »

What was the reason again for the tiny section behind one of the goals? Three sides of the stadium look superb, but you look over at that section and it just looks very odd.

Angry D4 heads and their fear of not getting sunlight in their back gardens or something

L'prof

OPENROAD wrote: »

Just speaking personally, my support of Arsenal has absolutely nothing to do with trying to link the club to Ireland in some way, I do see where you are coming from, maybe I'm taking the point up wrong, I wouldn't view the handing down from parent to child as an Irish link, you are supporting an English club, end of.

Same here, it's an added bonus any time there's an Irish player in the squad (cmon Eddie McGoldrick), but the likes of Brady and co. never influenced me because I didn't really put much thought into it. One of the lads down the road supported them because they were called Arse and that was a good enough reason for me!

stovelid

ntlbell wrote: »

I agree, my point really was would he have been upset if it was rovers/boh's etc against united and got leathered.

The problem for me was not the fact they were LOI players it was the fact they were patched together last minute job when it would have been more benificial to have rovers/bohs/etc play as a unit who know each other and could have put in a half decent performance.

eithier way would it had a big conversation rate, no.

I definitely think a settled side would have given a better account of themselves, as did Bohs against Villa.

I think the whole affair was badly thought out because the FAI were desperate to maximize the profit from the game while still retaining an Irish theme to it.

The Rooster

I don't see anything wrong with the FAI organising a money-spinning event to kick off soccer in the new stadium.

Now personally I would never pay such money to watch a friendly, and I had to give up my block booking at Lansdowne Road a number of years ago when it was extended from just competivite games to include the meaningless friendlies.

But the FAI have long been a follower of WC Field's great quote:

It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money


By the way, the Airtricity players played a big part in the embarrassment last night. No excuses can wash over the fact they were truly awful. And Richardson was the biggest embarrassment of all, with his disengious comments of "I'm surprised they didn't get 8" to try and make out he had no part to play in the defeat.

Of course if Celtic had won the Scottish title last season, it would most likely have been them playing the mancs last night. Could you imagine the different tone the LOI supporters would have had then!!

LuckyLloyd

stovelid wrote: »

Fair enough, I jumped in hastily. I didn't see the game. I would assume that playing in a team of strangers would be hard enough, let alone against a team as strong as United. Must also be very demoralizing to play in front of 40+ thousand Irish people cheering for the team that is far better than you too. Powell also seems to be a shadow of the player he was last year too. Sounds like he had a shocker.

On a general note; Outside of the usual LOI/EPL battles, I have to say that these match threads (see Juve/Rovers too) sadden me a little. The league is struggling because of lack of interest, but I always detect a weird mixture of impartiality (that is, people honestly expecting both teams to compete equally cf: that part-time centre-half really got embarrassed by that famous international midfielder who is on 100k a week, didn't he?) and strange nascent patriotism (some of the same people that denigrate the league here seem to imply that the league are embarrassing the country when they can't beat the biggest teams in the world and blow in to LOI threads to dispense pats on the back when they get a result).



Although I find this a betrayal of what football is about (even for some EPL supporters), fair play to you for being truthful and not hiding your motives behind a load of hogwash like my brother loved them/the bad facilities drove me away/I have no club near me etc etc.

This is what I do for ANY football match I watch here. Even when Ireland or Liverpool are playing I have an inclination to post descriptions of what I see infront of me on here. Not the most constructive thing to do, but I do it nonetheless. I in turn find the inability of LOI supporters to process the facts of games like last night or Rovers / Juve last week in a vacuum independant of everything else baffling. In last week's thread, anything that was praising of Juve on its own or critical of Rovers on its own was shouted down. Why?

Its not about expecting teams to compete equally. Its just about not feeling the need to qualify each comment on a match in advance with a disclaimer: 'now obviously player / team X is inferior to Y and the yawning disparity in talent is a symptom of how lacking Irish football "fans" are but player X really needs to do better with his end delivery when he gets that much time to cross it'. :rolleyes:

As for the patriotism thing as well, my mates make an extra effort to go and watch any Dublin side at home in a European tie each summer. Are you saying we shouldn't? Or we should, but not cheer on the local team because we haven't sufficiently earned it? Maybe we shouldn't take any interest unless we're fully signed up as LOI fans?

There are a lot of nuanced codes and rules with you lads. I just engage with football on my own terms as and when I feel like it. Shoot me.

stovelid wrote: »

It's not the point.

The FAI ostensibly have a duty to help and promote the local game so I don't really how inviting the best supported English team in the country to leather a local selection that have never played together and have to cope with 40+k Irish supporters cheering on United. Add to that the fact that the players didn't get remunerated properly and the league is in full swing here AND a team like Bohs had a handful of players chasing shadows (and getting injured) days before a potential league decider with us. It's clear the FAI are actually counter-productive to the game here.

And that's not a broadside against friendlies or even United: only that even the United supporters here can surely see that a game like this is not good for the league and only serves to fill the FAI's pocket. That money, in turn, will just be going straight into the staggering debt incurred by the stadium - a stadium whose only real worth to the local game here will be to host the FAI cup final or the odd European game.

I certainly agree that the stadium is of little or no value to the domestic game. I don't think that's relevant in a broader sense though. The stadium was built to satisfy the enormous demand and needs of two International sporting organisations and their representative teams (and two regional rugby teams who will be sure to pack it out from time to time).

Obviously, given the above I am of a mind that last night's game was not the correct way to go for an FAI organisational dry run. Inviiting another English / European club side to play Man Utd would have been a better option. Or sticking the Boh's / Shams league match infront of 9, 000 people (the dude claiming they would fill 3 / 4 of the stadium is having a laugh quite frankly). Truth is though, either scenario would displease a majority of those annoyed in here right now. We would be told of how it was shocking to have two non Irish teams play, or a disgrace that a big domestic game was allowed to take place in an empty stadium.

Yes, money talked. And no, there were better ways to go. But the idea that there was a perfect option on the table is disingenious.

Pro. F

Walsh wrote: »

Bit of a contradiction there?

Honestly, no there isn't. I was referring to
the FAI/LOI's organisational abilities not the players sporting abilities.

Walsh wrote: »

Anyway, i don't understand the people that bring up this 'Holier than you' argument?

It's very simple - this thread, like lots of others in the past, is littered with holier than thou LOI fanboy criticisms of Irish Manchester United supporters. I was expressing my dislike for that.

Walsh wrote: »

I try and get people to go to league of Ireland games to experience what I experience and it's unparralleled to all my football experiences, I've been to Old Trafford 7-8 times and didn't enjoy the match day experiences because I felt like a tourist among tourists at a museum, I just felt like I couldn't talk or even relate to the people around me, I'd rather keep United for my Saturday afternoon viewing after I've been out with my mates at a Shels match on the friday for a few pints, a laugh and a half decent game of ball (Yes it is possible to do both!!) I love Shelbourne and being a supporter of a local team where everyone in the ground knows each others faces and are friendly towards each other.I'd rather be giving my 10-25 euro a week to peopl who put real effort into keeping a small club ticking over than to some multi-millionaire who couldn't give two fúcks about who you are and how you are. I want people to come along, I want people to enjoy themselves, I want people to meet plenty of friendly folk who will become good friends, look after you with lifts to away matches and the sorts. People just don't know what they miss out on, to have a league which gets upwards 5,000 people at each match is a dream of mine and the fact that its achieveable breaks my heart.

That's fair enough. I have no problem with people following league football in Ireland. Personally, I will never go near it until it is run properly. But it's your choice and I can well believe that it works for you.

Something that strikes me - I get what your saying about the benefit of supporting a small club. Would you be unhappy if your club ended up massive and super rich? It's just an honest question and I'm not trying to prove any point with it.

major bill wrote: »

i agree that the fai are a shambles and would love that the League of ireland clubs take back full control of the league. however how does an irish man have any sort of connection to a british club like united or even worse chelsea????

It starts the same way that many fans (including LOI) have a connection with their club - an arbitrary decision that was made at some stage, usually when they were a kid. Then a sense of connection is built up over time by following the team and watching them play. The initial decision and the subsequent connection are usually aided by the involvement of Irish players with the British club. Eventually the fan gets to a point where they could never support any other club. Fans who follow a club that's far away end up building the connection mostly by watching games on tv.
It's a strange situation but it works for a lot of people.

The reason this happens so much is because the LOI fails at drawing in fans over here, both young and old. It's true that they are in a very difficult situation, with the proximity of the biggest league in the world, but I doubt that anybody would disagree that the organisers of Irish domestic football are completely incompetent.

major bill wrote: »

btw i dont care who you support its your right to support whoever ye like.

i just found it quite sad that on the opening day in a irish stadium an english team had more support than a bunch of irish lads:( but hey if people wana support united let them.

You are overlooking some important points. The best Irish players in the stadium were playing for the English team. The 'Irish' team was a farce that in reality only has the FAI's backing in order to fulfil FIFA obligations (domestic football required for international competition entry).
Lots of LOI fans on here have been nothing but critical of the team's formation and expressed disdain for the fixture. Of all the people who say that it's sad that everyone was cheering United, did many of them actually go along and cheer the LOI team?

I think it's sad that our domestic league is a complete farce and it's sad that any Irish player with any sort of proper talent plays abroad. Hopefully one day it will be rectified.
The necessary first step is to organise and run league football in Ireland properly. Calling for more fans to attend now is putting the cart before the horse and it ain't going to happen.

Pal

stovelid wrote: »

It's not the point.

The FAI ostensibly have a duty to help and promote the local game so I don't really how inviting the best supported English team in the country to leather a local selection that have never played together and have to cope with 40+k Irish supporters cheering on United. Add to that the fact that the players didn't get remunerated properly and the league is in full swing here AND a team like Bohs had a handful of players chasing shadows (and getting injured) days before a potential league decider with us.

It's clear the FAI are actually counter-productive to the game here.

.

Thank you for putting it so clearly.

My sentiments exactly but I might as well be talking to the wall given the level of comprehension by some here.

Pal

ntlbell wrote: »

Ok, I'm starting to get a better udnerstanding of why you're delusional

I doubt it.

herbieflowers

Pro. F wrote: »

Of all the people who say that it's sad that everyone was cheering United, did many of them actually go along and cheer the LOI team?

Tbh, I simply had no interest in going to the game (granted, I did watch it). If the FAI had worked it so that the game was of some benefit to the LOI generally (ie not reinforce a lot of misconceptions about the league; remuneration for the clubs) I'd imagine a lot more would've gone, the point of not going was based on principle than anything else.

As it was, most fans saw the game for what it was, a quick and cynical money-generator for the patrons of the local game, the FAI!

prinz

Pro. F wrote: »

Of all the people who say that it's sad that everyone was cheering United, did many of them actually go along and cheer the LOI team?

I'd have to wonder because everyone I could see were cheering for both. The perceived lack of cheering on the Airtricity XI was because they did very little worth cheering on for a lot of the match. It was a bit of craic and a spectacle. Putting out a proper LOI team against United properly would have made more of a match out of it, but how would they have chosen a team?

ntlbell

prinz wrote: »

I'd have to wonder because everyone I could see were cheering for both. The perceived lack of cheering on the Airtricity XI was because they did very little worth cheering on for a lot of the match. It was a bit of craic and a spectacle. Putting out a proper LOI team against United properly would have made more of a match out of it, but how would they have chosen a team?

Easy enough, current champions?

prinz

ntlbell wrote: »

Easy enough, current champions?

Should have thought of that :pac:

stovelid

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Maybe we shouldn't take any interest unless we're fully signed up as LOI fans?

Don't you support UCD any more?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I certainly agree that the stadium is of little or no value to the domestic game. I don't think that's relevant in a broader sense though. The stadium was built to satisfy the enormous demand and needs of two International sporting organisations and their representative teams (and two regional rugby teams who will be sure to pack it out from time to time).

You're misrepresenting my point. Of course, there is an overall need for the stadium but not such a direct benefit for the LOI that an under-prepared, unpaid select team should be put to the sword and players risked (and injured, as it transpires) during a competitive league schedule.

I'm hardly opposing the stadium in a general sense - why would I? I've supported Ireland for years, at least until this debacle.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Obviously, given the above I am of a mind that last night's game was not the correct way to go for an FAI organisational dry run. Inviiting another English / European club side to play Man Utd would have been a better option. Or sticking the Boh's / Shams league match infront of 9, 000 people (the dude claiming they would fill 3 / 4 of the stadium is having a laugh quite frankly). Truth is though, either scenario would displease a majority of those annoyed in here right now. We would be told of how it was shocking to have two non Irish teams play, or a disgrace that a big domestic game was allowed to take place in an empty stadium.

Personally I think Bohs and Rovers might have got a little more, perhaps up to 15-20k, given that there would been lots of people that wanted the historical cachet of attending the first game and the relatively cheap price of tickets but that's by the by. I just didn't want the LOI near the game in any way. A United Vs Republic of Ireland X1 would have ticked all the boxes: no inconvenience to the LOI; an Irish dimension and a big financial draw. I'd have even used my (offered) ticket myself if they were the two teams on offer. Would have been more of a contest too.

Het-Field

stovelid wrote: »

Don't you support UCD any more?



You're misrepresenting my point. Of course, there is an overall need for the stadium but not such a direct benefit for the LOI that an under-prepared, unpaid select team should be put to the sword and players risked (and injured, as it transpires) during a competitive league schedule.

I'm hardly opposing the stadium in a general sense - why would I? I've supported Ireland for years, at least until this debacle.



Personally I think Bohs and Rovers might have got a little more, perhaps up to 15-20k, given that there would been lots of people that wanted the historical cachet of attending the first game and the relatively cheap price of tickets but that's by the by. I just didn't want the LOI near the game in any way. A United Vs Republic of Ireland X1 would have ticked all the boxes: no inconvenience to the LOI; an Irish dimension and a big financial draw. I'd have even used my (offered) ticket myself if they were the two teams on offer. Would have been more of a contest too.

Only the novelty factor would have draw 15-20k to see a Bohemians v Shamrock Rovers game last night. Furthermore, the way Bohemians have conducted their finances, have taken their fans for a ride, and have made a mockery of the League against minow opposition from an atrocious principality based league, they dont deserve the opportunity to share the spoils of a night like last night. The same applies to teams like Cork City, Shelbourne FC, Derry City, Drogheda United etc who have all taken thier fans for granted, and have caused the virtual collapse of the aformentioned clubs.

Getting on the high horse to extoll the virtues of the National League ("I just didnt want the LOI anywhere near the game") is wrong. The National League was incrementally building in the late 1990s and early 00s, but it blew its chance by failing to upgrade, by failing to practice sound economics, and by failing to reach into communites, and making people feel part of their local club. We have got to face facts that until the leage engages in a belt and braces overhaul, then we cannot fool ourselves that the league has much virtue at all.

Last night was a good night for the players, who will rarely get to take on lads like Rooney, Owen, Valencia, Vidic etc ever again. In the 1990s large revenue was generated by having the likes of Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Liverpool, Leeds United, Nottingham Forest, and Sunderland over for friendly games. The same applied last night, and if any significant amount of revenue is given back to the Airtricty League, then it cannot be a bad thing.

eagle eye

Het-Field wrote: »

Furthermore, the way Bohemians have conducted their finances, have taken their fans for a ride, and have made a mockery of the League against minow opposition from an atrocious principality based league, they dont deserve the opportunity to share the spoils of a night like last night. The same applies to teams like Cork City, Shelbourne FC, Derry City, Drogheda United etc who have all taken thier fans for granted, and have caused the virtual collapse of the aformentioned clubs.

But Manchester United do

major bill

The Rooster wrote: »

Of course if Celtic had won the Scottish title last season, it would most likely have been them playing the mancs last night. Could you imagine the different tone the LOI supporters would have had then!!

im baffled by this?? so you have to be scottish champions to play in the aviva?? united didnt win the league last time either or are you saying celtic would have played a LOI 11??? either way i would still be against it

Of all the people who say that it's sad that everyone was cheering United, did many of them actually go along and cheer the LOI team?

true i didnt attend cos i dislike events like these im not a very nice football supporter to be around;)

Het-Field

eagle eye wrote: »

But Manchester United do

Manchester United's economic plan is far more stable then people believe. United have been resident in the Champions League since 1993. The continue to amass large revenue as they qualify for the latter rounds consistently. They have won countless trophies in the top English league. They are always in the running for the top prize money, and there is no sign of this abating. They have international assets worth countless millions of pounds. An example of this would be the £80 Million paid for Christiano Ronaldo in 2009. I would even venture that Ryan Giggs would command a fee of £500,000 and Scholes could be flogged for twice that, in spite of the fact that both are on their last legs. They are a brand name which is as robust as the Dallas Cowboys, the Boston Redsox, and the Chicago Bulls. They enjoy large TV revenue from national and international broadcasters. They also have their choice of Sponsors, with groups like Vodafone, AIG and Aon paying large sums to have their names adourn the shirts. The likes of the Glazers will sell, but they will sell for a huge price, which will inevitably be paid by Middle Eastern consortia, or a consortium of Manchester United Fans, who are well backed with a strong stream of money.

Bohemians etc took the Leeds United route. They speculated on consistent success, and success in the early rounds of European Competition. This carried with it the same perils which Leeds United faces, and ultimately endured. Bohemians were not a club which enjoyed the consistent domestic success of Manchester United, and were stupid to speculate on such things. This culminated in the embarressing cap-in-hand attempt by the club to illicit their seasons prize money, before the season was even finished. They signed players on inflated wages, which could only be paid by consistent LOI Championships, and qualification for The 2nd/3rd Round of UEFA Champions League Qualifications. Many players like Glen Crowe were signed in older age, and their potential sell on value was negligible. Yes, you would occasionally find a Wes Houlihan, Richie Foran, Kevin Doyle, Stephen Hunt, Joe Gamble, Keith Fahey, Noel Hut etc, but these are the exception rather then the rule.

Manchester United fans are dissatisfied that they are not spunking out massive wads of cash on Messi, Tevez, Gyan, Huguain etc. They are greedy, nothing more and nothing less. They have the same levels of debt as teams like Real Madrid/Barcelona, but thier have a sustainable economic position based on their continued success, their brand name, and the large value player assets which they have.

Zebra3

Het-Field wrote: »

The same applies to teams like Cork City, Shelbourne FC, Derry City, Drogheda United etc who have all taken thier fans for granted,

Please explain how Shelbourne FC has taken its fans for granted.

parker kent

major bill wrote: »

im baffled by this?? so you have to be scottish champions to play in the aviva?? united didnt win the league last time either or are you saying celtic would have played a LOI 11???

I imagine he means that if Celtic had won the league, they would not have been playing in Europe last night so they would have had a free evening last night. And with Celtic being popular here they may have been invited.

Het-Field

Zebra3 wrote: »

Please explain how Shelbourne FC has taken its fans for granted.

Shelbourne decided to stake it's future on extended runs in the Champions League. They signed players like Glen Crowe, Bobby Ryan, Colin Hawkins, Gary O Neill, Curtis Fleming etc on inflated fees and for inflated wages. Within one year of signing these lads, Shelbourne FC the writing was on the wall. Within two years of their signature, the club had all but gone to the wall.

Any decision which is taken, which is not in the best interests of the football club, is a vicarious attack on the fans. The financial profligacy which was evident after the 2004 Season was a decision which was not in the best interests of the club. It took for granted the fact that these fans would always be around spunking money on the club. After last night's game, I went to Dicey's Garden in my 1999/2000 model Shelboune Jersey, were two different lads came up and said to me, "Christ, I havent seen a Shelbourne Jersey in years". It was an indictment of the profligate spending of Ollie Byrne (RIP), who for some reason remains a God to some sections of Shelbourne Fans.

LuckyLloyd

stovelid wrote: »

Don't you support UCD any more?

Of course I do (they continue to punch well above their weight given their squad ), and yet I am always accused of having some ulterior agenda when I post on these sort of match threads.

It shouldn't matter who I support though should it? One should be allowed to say 'Amauri has had a great game' or 'Powell has had an awful game' after the last two games irrespective of what football teams they support / who they go to watch play.

LuckyLloyd

Het-Field wrote: »

Shelbourne decided to stake it's future on extended runs in the Champions League. They signed players like Glen Crowe, Bobby Ryan, Colin Hawkins, Gary O Neill, Curtis Fleming etc on inflated fees and for inflated wages. Within one year of signing these lads, Shelbourne FC the writing was on the wall. Within two years of their signature, the club had all but gone to the wall.

Any decision which is taken, which is not in the best interests of the football club, is a vicarious attack on the fans. The financial profligacy which was evident after the 2004 Season was a decision which was not in the best interests of the club. It took for granted the fact that these fans would always be around spunking money on the club. After last night's game, I went to Dicey's Garden in my 1999/2000 model Shelboune Jersey, were two different lads came up and said to me, "Christ, I havent seen a Shelbourne Jersey in years". It was an indictment of the profligate spending of Ollie Byrne (RIP), who for some reason remains a God to some sections of Shelbourne Fans.

And then you have posters on here like Pure Cork arguing that Shels should be saved when they destroy themselves in such a manner. :rolleyes:

CSF

Het-Field wrote: »

They signed players like Glen Crowe, Bobby Ryan, Colin Hawkins, Gary O Neill, Curtis Fleming etc on inflated fees

Dya wanna quote me some of these fees?

LuckyLloyd

CSF wrote: »

Dya wanna quote me some of these fees?

You accept they were paid wages completely out of line with what the club could support, yes?

The spirit of his post is bang on the money, and you know this.

CSF

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You accept they were paid wages completely out of line with what the club could support, yes?

The spirit of his post is bang on the money, and you know this.

So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?

pablomakaveli

CSF wrote: »

So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?

The inflated wages part is definitely true.

flahavaj

CSF wrote: »

So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?

He doesn't need to know the exact fees to be correct in his assertions.

On a side note, I always welcome these threads as a sort of quality control filter for who's posts are worth taking seriously and who's aren't.

CSF

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The inflated wages part is definitely true.

Yeah but cmon its hardly worth a post to point that out. What he posted was pretty much the equivalent of saying 'Portsmouth went into administration because they spent too much on players and wages, another major reason for their demise was because they gave Avram Grant too much money to satisfy his habit of visiting brothels'

I mean yeah Portsmouth went to bits because they pumped too much money into players and wages, and it is reported that Grant enjoys a visit to the oul sketchy gentlemans club, but I'd still look like an absolute numpty if I made the above post in anything other than a humorous manner. This chap is coming in here like he knows what he is talking about. The entire tone of the post suggests that. It is blatantly clear that he doesn't, so he should just stick to the obvious really.

CSF

flahavaj wrote: »

He doesn't need to know the exact fees to be correct in his assertions.

On a side note, I always welcome these threads as a sort of quality control filter for who's posts are worth taking seriously and who's aren't.

There were no fees for those players. Does he not need to know this to be correct in his assertions?

pablomakaveli

CSF wrote: »

Yeah but cmon its hardly worth a post to point that out. What he posted was pretty much the equivalent of saying 'Portsmouth went into administration because they spent too much on players and wages, another major reason for their demise was because they gave Avram Grant too much money to satisfy his habit of visiting brothels'

I mean yeah Portsmouth went to bits because they pumped too much money into players and wages, and it is reported that Grant enjoys a visit to the oul sketchy gentlemans club, but I'd still look like an absolute numpty if I made the above post in anything other than a humorous manner. This chap is coming in here like he knows what he is talking about. The entire tone of the post suggests that. It is blatantly clear that he doesn't, so he should just stick to the obvious really.

Well given Shels fans never pass the oppurtunity to take digs at fans of other clubs who've experienced financial problems it probably is worth pointing it out.

CSF

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well given Shels fans never pass the oppurtunity to take digs at fans of other clubs who've experienced financial problems it probably is worth pointing it out.

Ok well I'm sure he could have done that pretty simply without trying to seem educated on the issue, and avoided looking simple. I wouldn't mind if it was someone having a cheap dig or something, this chap was trying to act like he knew his ****.

bohsman

CSF wrote: »

Dya wanna quote me some of these fees?

You think Crowe, big nose and horseboy took paycuts to join Shels?

CSF

bohsman wrote: »

You think Crowe, big nose and horseboy took paycuts to join Shels?

You do understand the difference between transfer fees and wages yeah? No1s trying to argue that players were grossly overpaid.