Who do you want to win the league?

[Guest alex]

I'll not waste too much time on this one as I know you're an intelligent lad and I suspect you're just playing a bit dumb, but seriously do you have any idea how much the goodwill and publicity (to the point of pre-occupation) of the UK and international press and media is worth to your club? If you don't see yourself as a 'special case' in this regard then I don't see that the argument can proceed sensibly.

 

I love the way you think the 'wealth that was generated' by Munich can be measured by the relative turnstile statistics five years either side of the disaster.

 

But you're still avoiding the question! Nobody is arguing that Munich didn't increase the popularity but the discussion is about wealth. To date, you've not produced a single argument as to how Munich significantly added to the clubs wealth. Did these sympathisers go to games, buy replica shirts, or what?

 

I've already said that I think Man United being the dominant club in the 90s when the export boom to Asia was at it's height and being the first English team to win European cup in 68 with Bestie et al were significant factors in adding to the wealth. I'd still like to hear your take as to how Munich contributed financially.

The 60's with the European Cup win and Best, Law and Charlton are a massive factor I must agree. Even my Dad had time for Man Utd then and he likes them about as much as I do

[manc-mag 1]

I'll not waste too much time on this one as I know you're an intelligent lad and I suspect you're just playing a bit dumb, but seriously do you have any idea how much the goodwill and publicity (to the point of pre-occupation) of the UK and international press and media is worth to your club? If you don't see yourself as a 'special case' in this regard then I don't see that the argument can proceed sensibly.

 

I love the way you think the 'wealth that was generated' by Munich can be measured by the relative turnstile statistics five years either side of the disaster.

 

But you're still avoiding the question! Nobody is arguing that Munich didn't increase the popularity but the discussion is about wealth. To date, you've not produced a single argument as to how Munich significantly added to the clubs wealth. Did these sympathisers go to games, buy replica shirts, or what?

 

I've already said that I think Man United being the dominant club in the 90s when the export boom to Asia was at it's height and being the first English team to win European cup in 68 with Bestie et al were significant factors in adding to the wealth. I'd still like to hear your take as to how Munich contributed financially.

The 60's with the European Cup win and Best, Law and Charlton are a massive factor I must agree. Even my Dad had time for Man Utd then and he likes them about as much as I do

 

Shut up Alex you cock.

 

FCUM....you choose the '68 final win as an example of how it added to the wealth-why? (apart from whatever the token winners sum/gate receipts etc amounted to) Was the ground suddenly swamped with Jap merchandise crazed TV executives? No. That example is just as nebulous as mine on your logic, it's just it sits easier with you to cite it as its an example of you winning something rather than just becoming popular as a result of a random tragedy.

 

The Munich distaster is and always will be the genus of the whole phenomenon of English football holding Manchester United up above all other things. The European cup win was one win ffs. Never mind that you were the first English club. Liverpool dominated Europe and never got the media arse licking/sympathy you lot did. Jesus look at the Sun's reaction to Hillsborough for an example of how other clubs get it. Ditto Newcastle-the anti toon/anthing remotely north of London with the exception of Man U is ridiculous.

 

Obviously the Asian exports in the 90's have put extra pounds on the balance sheets and more so probably than any other individual factor in recent years, but my point is simply that the goodwill of the press/media........just simply keeping the profile of your club in the public eye constantly, serves as a means of upholding standards at your club, promoting the interests of your club, publicising your club and ultimately, generating wealth for it.

 

If you hadnt won all those trophies in the 90's the fact is you'd still have been arse licked by SKY and treated as an exception/constantly plastered over the TV because of the home TV audiences. FACT! Not that that generates income of course.

[manc-mag 1]

If I can put it in other words, it's like having the whole media as your PR company, constantly promoting your interests. Other clubs dont have this and if you dont think this puts you at a competitve advantage then like I say, the discussion just can't proceed sensibly. It's the norm to you so I understand that you don't appreciate/can't accept that, but seriously, I can assure you, it makes you the exception!

 

I'm not trying to make light of any achievements by the way. What you win you win on merit and that applies to all teams. Fair do's.

 

It's the sanctimonious 'Man Utd the religion' attitude that gets me. And that above all other things is symptomatic of fans bred on media favouritism. You think you're better because youre treated better. Proof positive tbh.

[Howaythetoon 0]

I think Munich made most of the footballing world aware of who Manchester United are and helped make them famous in many respects but wealth wise, I don't think it has mattered a lot, the Premiership, Sky and global market factors have created Man Utd's wealth - that and obvious good management on and off the pitch.

 

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

Their wealth in the 80s came via floating on the SE for example and I'd say they were no more wealthier than most leading up to that whole era, despite being a more recognised name due to Munich both in Britain and throughout the world. Remember also back then, there were no foreign markets to sell shirts, no iconic Beckhams to front campaigns and during the European ban, no visist to foreign soil and no bumper TV deals.

 

It is also a myth that Man Utd's vast wealth comes from an army of Asians or other foreign fans, it doesn't, it comes from being mega successful at home - i.e. TV money domestic and global, corporate sponsorship and a 76,000 capacity - all built relatively recently on the back of Sky, and the popularity of the Premiership worldwide.

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

The media do make a big deal of Man Utd and have done for years, but then they are very news worthy and the same can be said for any successful club. Just look at Chelsea, look at us under KK, we were the talk of football home and abroad and suddenly more established clubs like Villa, Spurs and Everton were being ignored.

 

Also, if the Man Utd love in off the back of Munich gave them an advantage, how come it took them years to win the League again and to do anything in Europe? They got no advantage because of Munich, sympathy and more fame yes, but a fat lot of good it did them.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Howaythetoon

[Gemmill 34166]

Crazy manc on manc action!

[manc-mag 1]

I think Munich made most of the footballing world aware of who Manchester United are and helped make them famous in many respects but wealth wise, I don't think it has mattered a lot, the Premiership, Sky and global market factors have created Man Utd's wealth - that and obvious good management on and off the pitch.

 

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

Their wealth in the 80s came via floating on the SE for example and I'd say they were no more wealthier than most leading up to that whole era, despite being a more recognised name due to Munich both in Britain and throughout the world. Remember also back then, there were no foreign markets to sell shirts, no iconic Beckhams to front campaigns and during the European ban, no visist to foreign soil and no bumper TV deals.

 

It is also a myth that Man Utd's vast wealth comes from an army of Asians or other foreign fans, it doesn't, it comes from being mega successful at home - i.e. TV money domestic and global, corporate sponsorship and a 76,000 capacity - all built relatively recently on the back of Sky, and the popularity of the Premiership worldwide.

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

The media do make a big deal of Man Utd and have done for years, but then they are very news worthy and the same can be said for any successful club. Just look at Chelsea, look at us under KK, we were the talk of football home and abroad and suddenly more established clubs like Villa, Spurs and Everton were being ignored.

 

Also, if the Man Utd love in off the back of Munich gave them an advantage, how come it took them years to win the League again and to do anything in Europe? They got no advantage because of Munich, sympathy and more fame yes, but a fat lot of good it did them.

 

Am I right in thinking you started watching Newcastle/following football in 1994?

[Howaythetoon 0]

I think Munich made most of the footballing world aware of who Manchester United are and helped make them famous in many respects but wealth wise, I don't think it has mattered a lot, the Premiership, Sky and global market factors have created Man Utd's wealth - that and obvious good management on and off the pitch.

 

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

Their wealth in the 80s came via floating on the SE for example and I'd say they were no more wealthier than most leading up to that whole era, despite being a more recognised name due to Munich both in Britain and throughout the world. Remember also back then, there were no foreign markets to sell shirts, no iconic Beckhams to front campaigns and during the European ban, no visist to foreign soil and no bumper TV deals.

 

It is also a myth that Man Utd's vast wealth comes from an army of Asians or other foreign fans, it doesn't, it comes from being mega successful at home - i.e. TV money domestic and global, corporate sponsorship and a 76,000 capacity - all built relatively recently on the back of Sky, and the popularity of the Premiership worldwide.

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

The media do make a big deal of Man Utd and have done for years, but then they are very news worthy and the same can be said for any successful club. Just look at Chelsea, look at us under KK, we were the talk of football home and abroad and suddenly more established clubs like Villa, Spurs and Everton were being ignored.

 

Also, if the Man Utd love in off the back of Munich gave them an advantage, how come it took them years to win the League again and to do anything in Europe? They got no advantage because of Munich, sympathy and more fame yes, but a fat lot of good it did them.

 

Am I right in thinking you started watching Newcastle/following football in 1994?

 

FANTASTIC

 

No actually, 92-93, proper bandwagon jumper me.

[manc-mag 1]

I think Munich made most of the footballing world aware of who Manchester United are and helped make them famous in many respects but wealth wise, I don't think it has mattered a lot, the Premiership, Sky and global market factors have created Man Utd's wealth - that and obvious good management on and off the pitch.

 

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

Their wealth in the 80s came via floating on the SE for example and I'd say they were no more wealthier than most leading up to that whole era, despite being a more recognised name due to Munich both in Britain and throughout the world. Remember also back then, there were no foreign markets to sell shirts, no iconic Beckhams to front campaigns and during the European ban, no visist to foreign soil and no bumper TV deals.

 

It is also a myth that Man Utd's vast wealth comes from an army of Asians or other foreign fans, it doesn't, it comes from being mega successful at home - i.e. TV money domestic and global, corporate sponsorship and a 76,000 capacity - all built relatively recently on the back of Sky, and the popularity of the Premiership worldwide.

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

The media do make a big deal of Man Utd and have done for years, but then they are very news worthy and the same can be said for any successful club. Just look at Chelsea, look at us under KK, we were the talk of football home and abroad and suddenly more established clubs like Villa, Spurs and Everton were being ignored.

 

Also, if the Man Utd love in off the back of Munich gave them an advantage, how come it took them years to win the League again and to do anything in Europe? They got no advantage because of Munich, sympathy and more fame yes, but a fat lot of good it did them.

 

Am I right in thinking you started watching Newcastle/following football in 1994?

 

FANTASTIC

 

No actually, 92-93, proper bandwagon jumper me.

 

Seriously mate, no thats great. Pretty sure you said your first game was Villa '94. Now I know youre not in your teens so the bandwagon jumper thing were your words not mine but I wont dispute it.

 

No offence intended but I make it a point not to debate with the SKY generation of fan.

[Howaythetoon 0]

I think Munich made most of the footballing world aware of who Manchester United are and helped make them famous in many respects but wealth wise, I don't think it has mattered a lot, the Premiership, Sky and global market factors have created Man Utd's wealth - that and obvious good management on and off the pitch.

 

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

Their wealth in the 80s came via floating on the SE for example and I'd say they were no more wealthier than most leading up to that whole era, despite being a more recognised name due to Munich both in Britain and throughout the world. Remember also back then, there were no foreign markets to sell shirts, no iconic Beckhams to front campaigns and during the European ban, no visist to foreign soil and no bumper TV deals.

 

It is also a myth that Man Utd's vast wealth comes from an army of Asians or other foreign fans, it doesn't, it comes from being mega successful at home - i.e. TV money domestic and global, corporate sponsorship and a 76,000 capacity - all built relatively recently on the back of Sky, and the popularity of the Premiership worldwide.

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

The media do make a big deal of Man Utd and have done for years, but then they are very news worthy and the same can be said for any successful club. Just look at Chelsea, look at us under KK, we were the talk of football home and abroad and suddenly more established clubs like Villa, Spurs and Everton were being ignored.

 

Also, if the Man Utd love in off the back of Munich gave them an advantage, how come it took them years to win the League again and to do anything in Europe? They got no advantage because of Munich, sympathy and more fame yes, but a fat lot of good it did them.

 

Am I right in thinking you started watching Newcastle/following football in 1994?

 

FANTASTIC

 

No actually, 92-93, proper bandwagon jumper me.

 

Seriously mate, no thats great. Pretty sure you said your first game was Villa '94. Now I know youre not in your teens so the bandwagon jumper thing were your words not mine but I wont dispute it.

 

No offence intended but I make it a point not to debate with the SKY generation of fan.

 

Damn my mother, for having me when she did. Oh well, *shuffles off quietly to SSN for my daily fix of football influence and opinion*

 

Always said this place was too snobby

Edited January 24, 2007 by Howaythetoon

[Fop 1]

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

When we came close to Man U in relative worth when were a “new” (at least in the eyes of most) and extremely exciting football brand, both in terms of domestic and international finance, people liked to watch and some even semi-support NUFC just for that, even if they really supported other teams.

It was also a time of financial change with new money coming in making older sources less relevant comparatively (but that still didn’t level the playing field historically, of course).

 

We really didn’t capitalise upon our opportunity (on the field or off) and they did, but the reasons for getting that opportunity weren’t really then same between the two clubs.

 

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

No it’s not the whole reason or anything close, of course, but it IS the initial spark (or explosion in media publicity terms).

Man U went from being Man Who? in global terms to being THE english team (or even European teams baring maybe RM/Barc and 1 or 2 Italian ones) that most anyone in the world would know about.

 

You cannot buy publicity like that (or goodwill), you probably cannot win publicity like that (at least back then – and certainly not goodwill).

 

Munich got the Man U brand out there, that younger people may not realise that is irrelevant now that the brand IS out there.

[Guest stevieintoon]

Newcastle United were a bigger, richer, better supported club than every club in this country along with Arsenal during the 20th century till Munich no one can argue with that.

Edited January 24, 2007 by stevieintoon

[Ketsbaia 0]

Newcastle United were a bigger, richer, better supported club than every club in this country along with Arsenal during the 20th century till Munich no one can argue with that.

 

I can, I just can't be fucked to put a decent argument together and counter that statement.

[Guest stevieintoon]

Newcastle United were a bigger, richer, better supported club than every club in this country along with Arsenal during the 20th century till Munich no one can argue with that.

 

I can, I just can't be fucked to put a decent argument together and counter that statement.

Well pipe down then.

[Howaythetoon 0]

Remember when we won promotion, we were not too far behind them in terms of wealth so that just goes to show you how much of their wealth has transformed since the turn of the 90s and indeed for most clubs - long after Munich.

 

When we came close to Man U in relative worth when were a “new” (at least in the eyes of most) and extremely exciting football brand, both in terms of domestic and international finance, people liked to watch and some even semi-support NUFC just for that, even if they really supported other teams.

It was also a time of financial change with new money coming in making older sources less relevant comparatively (but that still didn’t level the playing field historically, of course).

 

We really didn’t capitalise upon our opportunity (on the field or off) and they did, but the reasons for getting that opportunity weren’t really then same between the two clubs.

 

 

To cite Munich as the reason or the big factor behind Man Utd's global brand is plain daft, most of the people who came to know of Man Utd via the disaster are either dead now or very old and I doubt many are even aware of their past in that sense.

 

No it’s not the whole reason or anything close, of course, but it IS the initial spark (or explosion in media publicity terms).

Man U went from being Man Who? in global terms to being THE english team (or even European teams baring maybe RM/Barc and 1 or 2 Italian ones) that most anyone in the world would know about.

 

You cannot buy publicity like that (or goodwill), you probably cannot win publicity like that (at least back then – and certainly not goodwill).

 

Munich got the Man U brand out there, that younger people may not realise that is irrelevant now that the brand IS out there.

 

I honestly think Manc Mag is making a big deal of Munich and it's significance to Man Utd's wealth and global branding, in fact I'm unsure as to the exact point he's trying to make.

 

Is he saying Man Utd's success is down to Munich, their wealth, that they benefited over everyone else on the back of Munich? I don't know, he won't talk to me

 

Like I stated above, it helped a great deal in making them more famous to people home and abroad I ageree, that much is obvious, but I don't think this "brand awareness" gave them any extra advantages in terms of success or wealth, if that were the case how come they were often outbid for players by Liverpool and London clubs, how come they had to wait until Fergie for any meaningful success post Busby? How come their attendances weren't significantly better off? Munich was a kickstart, but the 68 European Cup win was what got Man Utd a fanbouse outside of Manchester just like Liverpool's European exploits got them new fans and wider appeal and what really gave birth to the whole Manchester United dynasty if you like and it is no coincidence that it was captured on Live TV. For Man Utd I give you England and the '66 World Cup win. There are some great books on the history of football, football economics and and how little Edwardian clubs came to become big global brands, and TV plays the biggest role. Not disasters or media bias. If media bias played such a big role, how come Northern teams have dominated the football landscape despite massive Southern bias towards London teams?

 

TV and epic European battles gave birth to Manchester United home and abroad, not Munich - Munich was like a business card, the win over Benfica was a televised global advert.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Howaythetoon

[Guest stevieintoon]

1900-1957

 

The Toon 10

Arsenal 10

Man Utd 7

Liverpool 5

Villa 5

Huddesrfield 4

Everton 4

Tottenham 2

[Gemmill 34166]

Munich was like a business card, the win over Benfica was an advert.

 

That's nearly as good as "Failure is like a disease to Kevin Keegan....one with no cure."

[Guest stevieintoon]

Munich was like a business card, the win over Benfica was an advert.

 

That's nearly as good as "Failure is like a disease to Kevin Keegan....one with no cure."

It was more than a business card, it was more like a "here ye gan shag wor lass", Benfica was like "shag wor lass and her sister." Munich was the most pivotal moment in English football history.

[Gemmill 34166]

Getting back to the original question - although I would prefer Man United to win, ideally I would like it to go all the way to the last game of the season. I'd like the games both broadcast live on separate Sky Sports channels, then at full time, I can switch to whichever team didn't win and watch their fans crying in the stands. At that stage I won't care if it's Chelsea or Man United fans, I'll just want to see some tears.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Munich was like a business card, the win over Benfica was a televised global advert.

 

Who got you the 'Big Book of Shit Quotes' for Christmas?

[Howaythetoon 0]

Newcastle United were a bigger, richer, better supported club than every club in this country along with Arsenal during the 20th century till Munich no one can argue with that.

 

Until the European Cup and TV. Best et al played a bigger role in Man Utd's advent than Munich, the likes of him captured the imagination and the appeal via the lens of TV cameras not some grainy pictures from Germany of a mangled plane with snow covering the wings (I'm not making light of the Munich disaster BTW).

 

You look through old newspapers of foreign countries and the Munich disaster didn't dominate the pages that much, now look at Man Utd's win over Benfica, that did, now you tell me what would have a bigger impact on people? Reading and hearing about a disaster in minute detail or actually watching a team live on telly, in a big match, and being thrilled by what was happening in front of your own two eyes?

 

Whole familes sat down to watch that match, home and abroad, women and kids very rarely read the paper man in the days of Munich, not before the husband anyway.

 

I'll try and find the title of a great book on the history of the game, it covers ecomoics and things like rise in popularity, TV spawned it all. Ironically Seymour was at the head of a TV/club revolt and we played a big part in it all, except as so often goes, we missed the boat. We didn't like the European Cup BTW, we said no to it, as did many clubs and the FA. Best thing that ever happened to Man Utd was entering it against the advice of most and then winning it.

[Howaythetoon 0]

Munich was like a business card, the win over Benfica was an advert.

 

That's nearly as good as "Failure is like a disease to Kevin Keegan....one with no cure."

It was more than a business card, it was more like a "here ye gan shag wor lass", Benfica was like "shag wor lass and her sister." Munich was the most pivotal moment in English football history.

 

Sorry that's bull Stevie, you're very knowledgeable about the history of football so I'm a bit taken aback by that comment. TV, the European Cup and 66 was the pivotal moments in English football history, that and the offside law which NUFC played a huge huge part in.

[Howaythetoon 0]

Munich was like a business card, the win over Benfica was an advert.

 

That's nearly as good as "Failure is like a disease to Kevin Keegan....one with no cure."

 

Thought you'd like it

 

I make them all up you know

[Howaythetoon 0]

Anyway I'm off, have to go out, canny debate. You wouldn't get this on N.O

[JawD 31]

I usually end up saying Man U. They play good football and they have the best manager we have seen or will see in a long time. Then I bump into one of their fans and it reminds me that in general they are a bunch of self obsessing tossers. So, though football tells me Man U, I'd prob say Chelsea due to their fans. All in all though, I couldnt care less. I'd like to see them both stumble and Liverpool nick it

[David Kelly 1115]

I would say Manure for as much as I despise their fans, I probably despise Chelskis more at the moment.

Plus even when Manure have won trophy after trophy it was never as borning as it is in danger of becoming with Chelski.