Who do you want to win the league?

[manc-mag 1]

You asked how Munich was a pivotal point in football history, there are so many reasons why, and I did my best to explain them before. 1958 for me heralded the start of glovalisation of our sport, with the Munich Air Disaster. Before that we did local jobs, for the local economy, supporting our local team, very, very few people even considered the idea of supporting a club miles away. Take Celtic. Prior to 1997 the club had never averaged over 40,000 in a season. When they reached the final of the 1967 European Cup they were considered to be a very small club against the giants of Inter Milan. Celtic were always a club for the Catholic people in the East End of Glasgow or at best Stratchclyde. With that success in 1967, catholics everywhere and particularly in Ireland were procliaming themselves as hoops fans, and this phenonenon was a natural progression from the chain of events which happened at Munich Airport. All of this money in football now, it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Your questions

 

Did Man Utd benefit finanically from Munich? No

 

I don't think it's understating it to say never in the history of world sport, has a company benefitted so spectacularly, and not just overnight. Being a big club doesn't happen just like that. The reason we fail is because we have no foundations, we have foundations, but the foundations in place are no where near Manchester United's, they'll always be at the top, they'll always be the number one club, we're half a century later and the key catalyst of this was Munich.

 

Did Man Utd get extra points for a win because of Munich? No

 

Irrelevant

 

Did Man Utd's gates increase significantly because Munich? No

 

Over a three decade period when most clubs gates were on the wain Man Utd became consistently the best supported club in this country every season.

 

Did Man Utd's trophy cabinet grow because of Munich? No

 

This was an era (60-90) when small clubs like Derby, Forest, Villa, Everton, Southampton, Sunderland, Ipswich, Coventry, could all compete for major honours. There was far, far less of a monopoly on the trophies from the big clubs. A decent manager could win an average club trophies, it was still the peoples game and wasn't governed by greed like it is today. I think the fact Man Utd didn't win the league from 1967 to 1993, yet remained by a distance the countries number one club, absolutely emphasises the impact Munich had.

 

Did the media show bias toward's Man Utd? because of Munich Yes

 

In the aftermath of Munich yes.... Today no, the media is very much London-centric, and it is my opinion (it is only an opinion) that both the FA and Fleet Street would love Tottenham and Arsenal to dominate English football.

 

Did they gain extra fans because of Munich? Yes

 

Yes they did. They became an institution. Freddie Shepherd claims the toon are an institution and you know there's no more biased toon fan than me, but are we fuck. We had 7-8 years where every away ground in the country was sold out to the rafters because Newcastle and the entertainers were in town but it didn't last because we're not ingrained the nations psyche like Man Utd are. They could go 20 years in midtable, they'd still have the magic, the name, the legend that is Man Utd, and it was all born in Munich.

 

 

I agree with the point Hillsborough was a pivotal point, but things were beginning to change with Heysel, but without a shadow of a doubt Munich was a turning point arguably in world football.

 

Again I'd agree with all of that with the exception of your assessment of current media bias. I agree it's more London-centric these days but that has been cyclical for years and it's not the same as saying it isnt pro Man U. Some of the media sees it as pretty much a London club anyway or at least has to downplay it's regional identity to account for the fact so many cockney hacks support the club.

[Guest stevieintoon]

You asked how Munich was a pivotal point in football history, there are so many reasons why, and I did my best to explain them before. 1958 for me heralded the start of glovalisation of our sport, with the Munich Air Disaster. Before that we did local jobs, for the local economy, supporting our local team, very, very few people even considered the idea of supporting a club miles away. Take Celtic. Prior to 1997 the club had never averaged over 40,000 in a season. When they reached the final of the 1967 European Cup they were considered to be a very small club against the giants of Inter Milan. Celtic were always a club for the Catholic people in the East End of Glasgow or at best Stratchclyde. With that success in 1967, catholics everywhere and particularly in Ireland were procliaming themselves as hoops fans, and this phenonenon was a natural progression from the chain of events which happened at Munich Airport. All of this money in football now, it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Your questions

 

Did Man Utd benefit finanically from Munich? No

 

I don't think it's understating it to say never in the history of world sport, has a company benefitted so spectacularly, and not just overnight. Being a big club doesn't happen just like that. The reason we fail is because we have no foundations, we have foundations, but the foundations in place are no where near Manchester United's, they'll always be at the top, they'll always be the number one club, we're half a century later and the key catalyst of this was Munich.

 

Did Man Utd get extra points for a win because of Munich? No

 

Irrelevant

 

Did Man Utd's gates increase significantly because Munich? No

 

Over a three decade period when most clubs gates were on the wain Man Utd became consistently the best supported club in this country every season.

 

Did Man Utd's trophy cabinet grow because of Munich? No

 

This was an era (60-90) when small clubs like Derby, Forest, Villa, Everton, Southampton, Sunderland, Ipswich, Coventry, could all compete for major honours. There was far, far less of a monopoly on the trophies from the big clubs. A decent manager could win an average club trophies, it was still the peoples game and wasn't governed by greed like it is today. I think the fact Man Utd didn't win the league from 1967 to 1993, yet remained by a distance the countries number one club, absolutely emphasises the impact Munich had.

 

Did the media show bias toward's Man Utd? because of Munich Yes

 

In the aftermath of Munich yes.... Today no, the media is very much London-centric, and it is my opinion (it is only an opinion) that both the FA and Fleet Street would love Tottenham and Arsenal to dominate English football.

 

Did they gain extra fans because of Munich? Yes

 

Yes they did. They became an institution. Freddie Shepherd claims the toon are an institution and you know there's no more biased toon fan than me, but are we fuck. We had 7-8 years where every away ground in the country was sold out to the rafters because Newcastle and the entertainers were in town but it didn't last because we're not ingrained the nations psyche like Man Utd are. They could go 20 years in midtable, they'd still have the magic, the name, the legend that is Man Utd, and it was all born in Munich.

 

 

I agree with the point Hillsborough was a pivotal point, but things were beginning to change with Heysel, but without a shadow of a doubt Munich was a turning point arguably in world football.

 

Again I'd agree with all of that with the exception of your assessment of current media bias. I agree it's more London-centric these days but that has been cyclical for years and it's not the same as saying it isnt pro Man U. Some of the media sees it as pretty much a London club anyway or at least has to downplay it's regional identity to account for the fact so many cockney hacks support the club.

Fair comment.

[Fop 1]

 

 

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

 

As I said Munich wasn't everything but it was a huge adavantage in publicity and fame (that has never receeded) which also translated into

 

The reason everyone knew about Man U (pre-mid to late 90's at least - but even then that spread on the back of it) was because of Munich. Liverpool is a prime example of more success and absolute domination that never got the same amount of publicity, goodwill and fame (or finincial benifits).

 

 

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?

 

Remember pre-Bosman football transfers were a different WORLD, nothing like what they have become since.

And the Munich effect was largely how much global and even UK support they retained despite lack of success in that period.

 

 

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.

 

More like the soap powered EVERYONE already knew about wining best soap powder of the year (dodgy analogy’s R us ).

[manc-mag 1]

FCUM will be all over this with a fine toothed comb later on. Unless he needs it for his Bobby Charlton whip-over that is.

[Howaythetoon 0]

You asked how Munich was a pivotal point in football history, there are so many reasons why, and I did my best to explain them before. 1958 for me heralded the start of globalisation of our sport, with the Munich Air Disaster. Before that we did local jobs, for the local economy, supporting our local team, very, very few people even considered the idea of supporting a club miles away. Take Celtic. Prior to 1997 the club had never averaged over 40,000 in a season. When they reached the final of the 1967 European Cup they were considered to be a very small club against the giants of Inter Milan. Celtic were always a club for the Catholic people in the East End of Glasgow or at best Stratchclyde. With that success in 1967, catholics everywhere and particularly in Ireland were procliaming themselves as hoops fans, and this phenomenon was a natural progression from the chain of events which happened at Munich Airport. All of this money in football now, it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Come off it Stevie, Munich didn't herald the globalisation of the game, if anything the World Cup did. Prior to that internationals were nothing but glorified friendlies often played among home nations or varied opposition on far flung tours that were rarely reported on. Hungary did more for globalisation than Munich by thrashing England at Wembley and opening up a whole new world of football we new existed but never recognised. When international football took on competition form and competitive form, that's when the globalisation of football set in, and how could you deny TV it's place below Munich as a factor in globalisation of the sport? Madness. As far back as the 20s there were talks of European super leagues if you will, globalisation would have happened with or without Munich.

 

As for attendances, Man Utd's record attendance came 10 years before Munich, over 80,000 so that tells you they were already a large club with a large fanbase. Our record attendance was more than 12,000 less. Before Munich they had already won 5 titles, one more than us, they were the top team in the 50s, winning three of their titles in that decade - all before Munich. They had also won 2 FA Cups, so were right up there as one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the short history of the game. Yes they didn't quite have the traditions and early honours that we did, or Arsenal and Villa for example, but they were a big club and Busby for them and that era of 3 titles was like our Edwardian era under Frank Watt - the whole foundation of our club's history. Are you trying to tell me, before Munich, they were just a shitty insignificant club? Just by appearing in the European Cup as league champions, the first English side to do so BTW which dominated sports pages the breadth of the country because at the time the FA and others viewed this competition akin to aliens coming to take over the planet, they were becoming more and more famous. New football suplements like Shoot were popping up in the 50s and as the best team of that decade, guess who dominated it? Man Utd so appeal was drawn from that too. In short they were already a popular team well covered by the new media, color was coming to print more and more, European matches were played over the radio, TV was just getting into football. All before Munich.

 

As for this:

 

This was an era (60-90) when small clubs like Derby, Forest, Villa, Everton, Southampton, Sunderland, Ipswich, Coventry, could all compete for major honours. There was far, far less of a monopoly on the trophies from the big clubs. A decent manager could win an average club trophies, it was still the peoples game and wasn't governed by greed like it is today. I think the fact Man Utd didn't win the league from 1967 to 1993, yet remained by a distance the countries number one club, absolutely emphasises the impact Munich had.

 

No team really dominated until Liverpool did, there wasn't a monopoly on the game pre-Munich and after until Liverpool in the 70s. If Munich brought about a monopoly on the game for Man Utd how come it took them until Fergie to attain some real success? And how were they the country's number one club? Were there regular "who is your fave team" polls? Going by your comments and Manc Mags, weren't they hated even during their barren years? Or do you mean well supported? The above is a piss poor example of how Munich gave Man Utd some kind of leg up over those poor little clubs like Everton Stevie, nee offence. BTW Everton were and still are a big club and you saying they are a small club shows your bias, they've won titles in nearly every decade except the 50s and the 90s/2000s. They are something like 7th in the all-time honours list and have average higher attendances than us, don't they? I could be wrong with the attendances but only those with insecurity complexes use attendancs to base how big a club is or isn't.

 

Anyway we've established the media showed extra bias towards them post Munich and that they gained some extra fans post Munich, but I honestly fail to see any meaningful benefit Man Utd have gained from Munich or how on earth Munich was the most pivotal moment in the history of our game. I think people forget just what a great team they lost and how many years, a decade, it took for them to recover, had Munich not happened, they'd have swept to more success and become an even bigger club and even more popular because that team would have most probably picked up the European Cup long before it eventually did ten years later. They lost a team, wiped out.

 

Aye, they benefited from it like.

 

A lot of things in this thread are pure opinion based on bias and resentment or vague guesses i.e. "I bet if you ask most poeople in the 80s who they supported they say Man Utd". If that were the case, they'd be the only club getting fans through the door, no

 

I've never heard so much shite regarding some of the stuff, biggest thing to happen to football, gave birth to the modern day Man Utd, a club that prior to Sky were being hawked about for 12m and couldn't even compete with Spurs for Gazza's signature man.

 

I could list 30 things more significant to the game of football and Man Utd than Munich

 

1: Offside law

2: Lifting of the wage cap, freedom of player movement

3: The Bosman

4: The Premiership

5: Sky

6: Technology

7: Heysel

8: Hillsborough

9: The European Cup

10: Fifa

11: UEFA

12: World Cup

13: Hooligans

14: TV

15: Money

16: The economy

17: Euro 96

19: Hosting & winning the World Cup

20: I'm running out of ideas

21: You get my drift.

 

Munich of course played a big role in the history of Man Utd and had an impact on the game, but not to the heights potrayed in this thread, or the significance.

[Guest stevieintoon]

You asked how Munich was a pivotal point in football history, there are so many reasons why, and I did my best to explain them before. 1958 for me heralded the start of globalisation of our sport, with the Munich Air Disaster. Before that we did local jobs, for the local economy, supporting our local team, very, very few people even considered the idea of supporting a club miles away. Take Celtic. Prior to 1997 the club had never averaged over 40,000 in a season. When they reached the final of the 1967 European Cup they were considered to be a very small club against the giants of Inter Milan. Celtic were always a club for the Catholic people in the East End of Glasgow or at best Stratchclyde. With that success in 1967, catholics everywhere and particularly in Ireland were procliaming themselves as hoops fans, and this phenomenon was a natural progression from the chain of events which happened at Munich Airport. All of this money in football now, it doesn't mean a thing.

 

Come off it Stevie, Munich didn't herald the globalisation of the game, if anything the World Cup did. Prior to that internationals were nothing but glorified friendlies often played among home nations or varied opposition on far flung tours that were rarely reported on. Hungary did more for globalisation than Munich by thrashing England at Wembley and opening up a whole new world of football we new existed but never recognised. When international football took on competition form and competitive form, that's when the globalisation of football set in, and how could you deny TV it's place below Munich as a factor in globalisation of the sport? Madness. As far back as the 20s there were talks of European super leagues if you will, globalisation would have happened with or without Munich.

 

As for attendances, Man Utd's record attendance came 10 years before Munich, over 80,000 so that tells you they were already a large club with a large fanbase. Our record attendance was more than 12,000 less. Before Munich they had already won 5 titles, one more than us, they were the top team in the 50s, winning three of their titles in that decade - all before Munich. They had also won 2 FA Cups, so were right up there as one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the short history of the game. Yes they didn't quite have the traditions and early honours that we did, or Arsenal and Villa for example, but they were a big club and Busby for them and that era of 3 titles was like our Edwardian era under Frank Watt - the whole foundation of our club's history. Are you trying to tell me, before Munich, they were just a shitty insignificant club? Just by appearing in the European Cup as league champions, the first English side to do so BTW which dominated sports pages the breadth of the country because at the time the FA and others viewed this competition akin to aliens coming to take over the planet, they were becoming more and more famous. New football suplements like Shoot were popping up in the 50s and as the best team of that decade, guess who dominated it? Man Utd so appeal was drawn from that too. In short they were already a popular team well covered by the new media, color was coming to print more and more, European matches were played over the radio, TV was just getting into football. All before Munich.

 

As for this:

 

This was an era (60-90) when small clubs like Derby, Forest, Villa, Everton, Southampton, Sunderland, Ipswich, Coventry, could all compete for major honours. There was far, far less of a monopoly on the trophies from the big clubs. A decent manager could win an average club trophies, it was still the peoples game and wasn't governed by greed like it is today. I think the fact Man Utd didn't win the league from 1967 to 1993, yet remained by a distance the countries number one club, absolutely emphasises the impact Munich had.

 

No team really dominated until Liverpool did, there wasn't a monopoly on the game pre-Munich and after until Liverpool in the 70s. If Munich brought about a monopoly on the game for Man Utd how come it took them until Fergie to attain some real success? And how were they the country's number one club? Were there regular "who is your fave team" polls? Going by your comments and Manc Mags, weren't they hated even during their barren years? Or do you mean well supported? The above is a piss poor example of how Munich gave Man Utd some kind of leg up over those poor little clubs like Everton Stevie, nee offence. BTW Everton were and still are a big club and you saying they are a small club shows your bias, they've won titles in nearly every decade except the 50s and the 90s/2000s. They are something like 7th in the all-time honours list and have average higher attendances than us, don't they? I could be wrong with the attendances but only those with insecurity complexes use attendancs to base how big a club is or isn't.

 

Anyway we've established the media showed extra bias towards them post Munich and that they gained some extra fans post Munich, but I honestly fail to see any meaningful benefit Man Utd have gained from Munich or how on earth Munich was the most pivotal moment in the history of our game. I think people forget just what a great team they lost and how many years, a decade, it took for them to recover, had Munich not happened, they'd have swept to more success and become an even bigger club and even more popular because that team would have most probably picked up the European Cup long before it eventually did ten years later. They lost a team, wiped out.

 

Aye, they benefited from it like.

 

A lot of things in this thread are pure opinion based on bias and resentment or vague guesses i.e. "I bet if you ask most poeople in the 80s who they supported they say Man Utd". If that were the case, they'd be the only club getting fans through the door, no

 

I've never heard so much shite regarding some of the stuff, biggest thing to happen to football, gave birth to the modern day Man Utd, a club that prior to Sky were being hawked about for 12m and couldn't even compete with Spurs for Gazza's signature man.

 

I could list 30 things more significant to the game of football and Man Utd than Munich

 

1: Offside law

2: Lifting of the wage cap, freedom of player movement

3: The Bosman

4: The Premiership

5: Sky

6: Technology

7: Heysel

8: Hillsborough

9: The European Cup

10: Fifa

11: UEFA

12: World Cup

13: Hooligans

14: TV

15: Money

16: The economy

17: Euro 96

19: Hosting & winning the World Cup

20: I'm running out of ideas

21: You get my drift.

 

Munich of course played a big role in the history of Man Utd and had an impact on the game, but not to the heights potrayed in this thread, or the significance.

I'll give a decent reply when I can be arsed, but I'm going to have a drink just now, needless to say I disagree with virtually everything you've mentioned there.

 

Just a snippet of where you are going wrong though.

 

As for attendances, Man Utd's record attendance came 10 years before Munich, over 80,000 so that tells you they were already a large club with a large fanbase. Our record attendance was more than 12,000 less. Before Munich they had already won 5 titles, one more than us, they were the top team in the 50s, winning three of their titles in that decade - all before Munich. They had also won 2 FA Cups, so were right up there as one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the short history of the game.

 

Their record attendance was 83,000, and my reply is so fuck. You mention our record attendance was more than 12,000 less than theirs, again so fuck. Our ground held no more than 69,000 at it's peak, and any historian like Paul Joannou will tell you there was 60,000 outside the ground when Hughie Gallagher came back and the record of 68,386 was attained. So I don't see any relevance what so ever in your point. They had their record gate in a season of 80,000 in a season when Newcastle had a WORLD RECORD average gate of 56,203, which stood for nearly 20 years, so fuck knows why you're comparing them with the toon in that period.

 

Man Utd with their 7 trophies prior to Munich were as big as most. Munich took them to another level and made them a national institution, it's a fact that in all honesty can't be argued with. The disaster was a pivotal point in Manchester United becoming a national institution, which lead the way for others like Liverpool and later Celtic.

Edited January 24, 2007 by stevieintoon

[FCUM 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.

 

MM,

 

The reason 1968 and the European cup had an influence on the wealth of the club is quite simple.

 

That European cup win was the start of what could be termed 'the gloryhunter' bandwagon when buoyed by that success Man Utd first started to attract paying supporters from outside of Manchester.

 

Obviously this did'nt happen to the same extent as the 1990s when travel was easier but it was from this success that Man Utd first acquired the 'cockney reds'. This Euro cup win saw a decent number of cockneys first start to travel up to Manchester for games by train. I was watching United at the time and it was a strange phenonema at the time to first start hearing these cockney accents at games. As it say, it wasn't massive numbers and certainly didn't include the 'home counties' element that latched on the 90s (the travel then was only easy for the cockneys within fairly easy reach of Euston). Nevertheless, I am happy to ackowledge that supporters were jumping on the bandwagon at this time. It wasn't just the European cup win per se, you had to be around at the time to appreciate it but Manchester was going through a major cultural change at the time, Bestie became known as the 5th beatle and there was a growing 'fashion scene' to rival Carnaby Street. Manchester became 'cool' at that time only for that to taper off in the mid to late 70s before gaining street cred again in the 80s from the burgeoning music scene centred around the Hacienda.

[FCUM 1]

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 wouldn't argue with that Steve, but I'm curious as to why you say till Munich. After Munich Man Utd's support tailed off considerably (well by say 10k from mid 50k's to mid 40k's) If Newcastle suddenly went behind Man Utd after Munich that suggests Newcastle's gates tapered off by a significant amount? I don't know enough about Newcastle's crowds but always thought off them getting better gates than Man Utd up until the 1970s (or maybe up until the Euro win in 68).

[FCUM 1]

 

Munich was the catalyst for clubs gaining fan bases far beyond their local area, speak to any old twat they'll tell you the same, shortly after Liverpool's style under Shankly started to develop their fan base along with the advent of televised football and the World Cup win, but Munich was the catalyst, and is the key reason why as long as there is football as we know it Manchester United will be the biggest club, they always have been since 1958.

 

Sorry Steve, you are wrong with that assertion. Unfortunately I'm old enough to have been around watching football in the 1960s and it wasn't until much later in the late 60s/early 70s that fans started to travel outside of their local clubs. Certainly that was the case in the Manchester area anyway.

[FCUM 1]

FCUM will be all over this with a fine toothed comb later on. Unless he needs it for his Bobby Charlton whip-over that is.

 

Uncalled for! Bloody youth of today, no respect mumble mumble

[Guest alex]

Another event that had a huge impact in changing English football into the media darling it is today was the 1990 World Cup btw. Following Hillsborough (which altered forever the way we went to the match) it helped provide the impetus for changing the attitude towards football amongst those who were previously not into football (or wouldn't admit to it) and helped pave the way for the Sky / Premier League revolution.

[Guest stevieintoon]

In terms of the delocalisation/money/metamorphosis of football I think the key things were:

 

Munich Air Disaster

George Eastham getting the minimum wage over turned

Heysel/Hillsborough

SKY

Euro 96

[manc-mag 1]

Munich and '66 to one side, for me it's:

 

1.George Eastham/Jimmy Hill on wage caps - formerly clubs had too much power

2.Bradford/Hillsbrough-grounds were shit and safety was an afterthought. Sporned football specific legislation. Brought a new fan into the ground

3.World Cup Italia 90-suddenly everyone was a football fan. It was socially acceptable and you were no longer associated with hooliganism

4.Sky-more money than you could shake a shitty stick at. Further improvement in facilities. Different coverage of the game/media interest.

5.Bosman-full circle from Eastham/Hill, players with too much power, clubs held to ransom.

 

Stevie....what do you think Euro 96 did just out of interest?

Edited January 25, 2007 by manc-mag

[FCUM 1]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

[manc-mag 1]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

 

I don't think it ranks up there that highly tbh but fair do's . I think the Newman and Baddiel song was more influential if anything.

[Gemmill 34197]

Jewels remain still cleaming?

[Renton 17638]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

 

I don't think it ranks up there that highly tbh but fair do's . I think the Newman and Baddiel song was more influential if anything.

 

And what was that written for?

 

I don't think Euro 96 changed anything fundamentally but it certainly boosted the Sky revolution. Incidentally, I went to both the matches at SJP and despite the capacity only being 36,000 then the stadium was half empty.

[Guest alex]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

 

I don't think it ranks up there that highly tbh but fair do's . I think the Newman and Baddiel song was more influential if anything.

 

And what was that written for?

 

I don't think Euro 96 changed anything fundamentally but it certainly boosted the Sky revolution. Incidentally, I went to both the matches at SJP and despite the capacity only being 36,000 then the stadium was half empty.

Too expensive. I went to the Roumania v Bulgaria game and nee one was there. Shame really. The nation were pretty enthusiastic about the England team though. Although I felt physically sick at hearing "One more for Scotland" during the 4-1 win over Holland . Personally I was delighted Kluivert's goal put them out. Hearing 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot" at Wemberley was a low point too. I went to the 1/4 final against Spain.

[manc-mag 1]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

 

I don't think it ranks up there that highly tbh but fair do's . I think the Newman and Baddiel song was more influential if anything.

 

And what was that written for?

 

I don't think Euro 96 changed anything fundamentally but it certainly boosted the Sky revolution. Incidentally, I went to both the matches at SJP and despite the capacity only being 36,000 then the stadium was half empty.

 

No shit, Sherlock.

 

It was Baddiel and Skinner btw. Spot the deliberate mistake.

[Renton 17638]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

 

I don't think it ranks up there that highly tbh but fair do's . I think the Newman and Baddiel song was more influential if anything.

 

And what was that written for?

 

I don't think Euro 96 changed anything fundamentally but it certainly boosted the Sky revolution. Incidentally, I went to both the matches at SJP and despite the capacity only being 36,000 then the stadium was half empty.

 

No shit, Sherlock.

 

It was Baddiel and Skinner btw. Spot the deliberate mistake.

 

 

I was wondering who the fuck Newman was but I let it go. Brodie probably deserves a bit more credit than this Newman character.

[Gemmill 34197]

Rob Newman titface! Baddiel's former sidekick. Mary Whitehouse Experience.

[Renton 17638]

Rob Newman titface! Baddiel's former sidekick. Mary Whitehouse Experience.

 

Erm, aye, and what's that got to do with Euro 96? Anyway, I've never watched that shit or anything with Baddiel in except Fantasy football, dick wad.

[manc-mag 1]

Rob Newman titface! Baddiel's former sidekick. Mary Whitehouse Experience.

 

Erm, aye, and what's that got to do with Euro 96? Anyway, I've never watched that shit or anything with Baddiel in except Fantasy football, dick wad.

 

Harsh but fair.

[Scottish Mag 3]

I think Steve has a fair point with Euro 96.

 

Hosting a major competition right in the middle of the Sky boom did add to the 'feelgood' factor surrounding football.

Whilst it probably didn't have great impact amongst the usual 'bloke' supporters I think it did play a major part in attracting the women and making it a more family orientated day out (unfortunately*).

 

* Am I allowed to say that in this PC society

 

I don't think it ranks up there that highly tbh but fair do's . I think the Newman and Baddiel song was more influential if anything.

 

And what was that written for?

 

I don't think Euro 96 changed anything fundamentally but it certainly boosted the Sky revolution. Incidentally, I went to both the matches at SJP and despite the capacity only being 36,000 then the stadium was half empty.

Too expensive. I went to the Roumania v Bulgaria game and nee one was there. Shame really. The nation were pretty enthusiastic about the England team though. Although I felt physically sick at hearing "One more for Scotland" during the 4-1 win over Holland . Personally I was delighted Kluivert's goal put them out. Hearing 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot" at Wemberley was a low point too. I went to the 1/4 final against Spain.

 

I was delighted when Southgate took "that" penalty..

[Gemmill 34197]

dick wad.

 

That's you, that is.