To say the Spanish league is not competitive when we got outclassed by a mid table team from there is a bit misguided
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely, to the above two posts. As I said, I am no expert on Spanish football. Though it seems to me it is hard to disentangle the various factors contributing to its football supremacy. How much of it is down to wealth and the distribution of TV money? How important is that factor relative to, say, the superior coaching young players receive? Bilbao's entire team cost less than some of our individual players, do there is something bigger than money at play here. That is a separate debate: England desperately needs to coach kids better. But that does not mean increasing the gap between the rich and poor clubs in the PL would do no harm, just because Spain is very competitive.
(I dont know why Gill and others insist on saying this about Spain when it is demonstrably untrue and distracts from the broader point he was trying to make.)
(I dont know why Gill and others insist on saying this about Spain when it is demonstrably untrue and distracts from the broader point he was trying to make.)
Yes, that point seemed to morph over the course of the three sentences. But still, even if there are only a couple of teams in with a shout of winning it, the point remains that the teams at the bottom of La Liga are better than the teams at the bottom of the Premier League. I think. Certainly their mid table clubs are stronger than ours.
No chance. Prem is a lot stronger league.
I think 8 teams in La Liga have gone into administration this season. It's a house of cards over there.
For all those using our game against Athletic as a gauge, it's about as much use as using Stoke v Valencia (where stoke went out in the second leg but had much better chances)
Interesting. And fair enough. Though the second para is no contradiction to what I am saying: Spanish money is less equitably distributed, which I wouldnt want to see here, as stated above, which would account for their financial difficulties. That is a different issue to the technical ability of players in Spanish teams, and how good they are on the whole at a game of association football. But as I said, I dont watch Spanish football and yes, I was basically going on the experiences United has had against Spanish teams, which seem to be pretty strong on the whole.
The Spanish league is as two tier as it gets.
This article is from last autumn but obviously still holds true today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/sep/07/la-liga-barcelona-real-madrid
It's crazy the way people have decided that the performances of Athletic against us in a cup competition we weren't particularly bothered about is somehow concrete evidence that the strength in depth of the Spanish League is on a par or better than that in the Premier League. Judging the relative strength of any two clubs/leagues based on a couple of games in a short space of time is inherently flawed. Using that logic you'd have Wigan as the second best team in the Premier League.
This article is from last autumn but obviously still holds true today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/sep/07/la-liga-barcelona-real-madrid
It's crazy the way people have decided that the performances of Athletic against us in a cup competition we weren't particularly bothered about is somehow concrete evidence that the strength in depth of the Spanish League is on a par or better than that in the Premier League. Judging the relative strength of any two clubs/leagues based on a couple of games in a short space of time is inherently flawed. Using that logic you'd have Wigan as the second best team in the Premier League.
Stoke were outplayed by Valencia, they didn't go out in the second leg in a full sense of that meaning - they also lost the first one at home.
There's absolutely no way that Premier League is much stronger. It's not even stronger IMO but to say it's much stronger is pure nonsense.
Just because Barcelona and Real Madrid are impossibly strong and rich doesn't make the rest of the league poor. And the fact that people think La Liga is stronger isn't based on our games against Athletic Club anymore than on the fact that 5 out of 8 teams still in Europe are Spanish.
Valencia are also currently the third best team in Spain, while Stoke are 14th place in the Premier League. If they were up against Rayo Vallacano we might have got a better idea of how the two leagues compare.
Although, of course, my point stands about the pointlessness of judging the relative strength of two teams based on a couple of games in a cup competition.
It most certainly does. When you're using "poor" in the financial sense. Which is usually fairly closely correlated with the strength in depth of any football team. Three clubs in La Liga were in administration at the start of the current season while 22 clubs from the top two divisions have passed through administration in the last few years.
Real and Barca aside Spanish sides have done well in the Europa League but that's an incredibly mickey mouse competition. All sorts of mediocre sides have progressed deep into that particular competition. Celtic were in the final just a few years back and fecking Fulham got there in 2010.
Yeah, in a competition they treat like the world cup and our sides view as a joke. Palace out played us for similar reasons in a domestic cup. In the European Champions league its the same old team doing well from Spain and no others once you exclude Mourinho changing Madrids fortunes of recent years.
Theres always Spanish or Portuguese sides in the latter Europa stages, don't think it proves squat myself. End of the day, Gill is right, if two teams take most of the TV league cash then the league competition will be affected. And realisticly only two teams have a chance to win it, the two big ones. Not the case here.And for what its worth, we got outclassed by Blackburn, Newcastle and Wigan too, or bave you forgotten?
Exactly mate. Rangers made the final in Manchester against the russians, case closed IMO.
Somehow mid-table English sides can't progress too far in the same competition though. Middlesbrough and Fulham have but they both got beaten by Spanish clubs. I think it's actually a competition that is a pretty good indicator of strength of mid-table teams in both leagues.
Lack of money doesn't equal lack of quality, especially in a country that produces so many talented players each year.
Valencia aren't a mid-table club.
They're third in La Liga and obviously taking the Europa League seriously as they haven't a hope of beating the big two in Spain to a domestic trophy. Unlike, say, Spurs who basically played their reserve team.
They're third in La Liga and obviously taking the Europa League seriously as they haven't a hope of beating the big two in Spain to a domestic trophy. Unlike, say, Spurs who basically played their reserve team.
Isn't Gill talking financially anyway?..
Well exactly - I have no idea why this has turned into a boring PL vs La Liga debate
it completely misses the point being made by Gill.Gill's point is that the financial disparity, driven by the differences in TV revenues, means that there can be no realistic long term competition with the big two. If Malaga had started when City did, they might have had a chance but, with FFP coming in, they have pretty much missed the window of opportunity.
Hmm.
On these forums belief in the existence of FFP is almost as rare as belief in God.
Not a good comparison. There's an outside chance God would punish Real if he took offence.
United Top Forbes Richest Club List Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/sports/soccer/manchester-uniteds-value-spikes.html?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/sports/soccer/manchester-uniteds-value-spikes.html?
That "soaring" is a lot to do with the dollar falling.
http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2012/04/18/manchester-united-again-the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-team/
http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2012/04/18/manchester-united-again-the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-team/
It's not just that, with continued growth in our marketing department, we've easily created an even stronger brand around the world.
Barcelona for all their success over recent years, are still far too dependent on Messi to bring home the bacon in terms of global awareness. You can bet your dollar that as soon as he leaves or turns to shit, Barcelona will return to being just another top club behind United and Real like Arsenal.
Barcelona for all their success over recent years, are still far too dependent on Messi to bring home the bacon in terms of global awareness. You can bet your dollar that as soon as he leaves or turns to shit, Barcelona will return to being just another top club behind United and Real like Arsenal.
I don't know, a lot can happen between now and Messi getting old. So many players now in the game already grew up wanting to play for Barca having watched them only being moderately successful, because of their playing style and a few of their stars.
If that was the case before, then the kids watching football on tv now will be looking to play for Barca like the young footballers playing now all wanted to play for Real after watching the Galaticos in their youth.
If Barca are smart they can use that to get the next Messi. They're already trying to beat Real in the spending amazing amounts of money stakes, when they're not blowing 35mil on a Greek defender they are bringing Fabergas and Alexis. At that's leaving aside their academy.
For the English speaking part of the world United should be top, but in the Spanish speaking part, Barca will be number 1, if not now then very soon.
If that was the case before, then the kids watching football on tv now will be looking to play for Barca like the young footballers playing now all wanted to play for Real after watching the Galaticos in their youth.
If Barca are smart they can use that to get the next Messi. They're already trying to beat Real in the spending amazing amounts of money stakes, when they're not blowing 35mil on a Greek defender they are bringing Fabergas and Alexis. At that's leaving aside their academy.
For the English speaking part of the world United should be top, but in the Spanish speaking part, Barca will be number 1, if not now then very soon.
My personal experience in Asia left me thinking if La Liga match times weren't so badly unwatchable for Asia, Barca would be absolutely clearing up with no competition. And why not? They have the best players in the world, a mammoth stadium and will always, always have the most exciting players on the planet.
United benefit sooo much from the fact that the PL is run in a far more business savvy way than La Liga.
If you're a young kid, keen on football, you support the team that ticks the most of these boxes:
1) you are most regularly exposed to on TV
2) has the best team and the best players (the latter being key)
3) a compatriot plays for them
United benefit sooo much from the fact that the PL is run in a far more business savvy way than La Liga.
If you're a young kid, keen on football, you support the team that ticks the most of these boxes:
1) you are most regularly exposed to on TV
2) has the best team and the best players (the latter being key)
3) a compatriot plays for them
Utter, utter misguided crap.
Utter misguided crap. Are you insane? Or just really really young and think everything lasts forever?
The problem with living within your means is that means things that are, themselves, for me, essentially "bad". How do football clubs make money? Bring a dozen kits out every season, which kids then badger their parents for. Increase ticket prices. Expand corporate hospitality, at the expense of traditional fans. Negotiate better TV rights, potentially at the expense of your competitors (in some cases). Become essentially a giant Tesco store, but with everything you sell branded with the club crest.
I say bad for football. Not all of these things are that bad - certainly not the end of the world. But it certainly detracts from the romantic ideal of football. Manchester United has been at the cutting edge of this particular element of the game's metamorphosis, being one of the first to really exploit these revenue streams is where our money comes from, why we are so much purer than other rich clubs.
So yes, I would argue making money by exploiting the commercial appeal of the club to consumers over the world is probably a better way to be rich than exploiting the commercial appeal of, say, oil, and then channeling the money into the football club. Our way is self contained in the world of football at least. And at least our success is pleasing to the greater number of fans who directly contribute to it, rather than the consumers of Russian or Arab oil, who dont care a jot about football.
But both are a long way from what football was about a long time ago before it was taken over by money.
super-rich ownership is nothing new, it has been here a long time - Agnelli's at Juve, Berlusconi at Milan, Moratti at Inter and the magnate that owned Lazio for a few years in the late 90's into the millenium - Marseille in the early 90's with Tappie.
So Chelsea and City have not created anything new - it's just that the figures have changed. But the 1950's, 60's,70's 80's and early '90's were littered with overseas players heading to Italy due to lure of the Lire.
There are two lines of thought on mega-rich football club ownership.
The down: Their spending power and mega wages put enormous pressure on the resources of any clubs wishing to compete with them, and obviously inflate the market - however, they can't buy ALL of the good players.
The up: If clubs are resourced only through their own earnings, then , unless you have a complete k***bhead as a manager and owner, it creates a "status quo" as the clubs that generate the most resources are undoubtedly in with more of a chance of dominating their respective theatres of operation , so at least an injection of outside capital into other clubs prevents this stagnation of alternative clubs ambitions.
So Chelsea and City have not created anything new - it's just that the figures have changed. But the 1950's, 60's,70's 80's and early '90's were littered with overseas players heading to Italy due to lure of the Lire.
There are two lines of thought on mega-rich football club ownership.
The down: Their spending power and mega wages put enormous pressure on the resources of any clubs wishing to compete with them, and obviously inflate the market - however, they can't buy ALL of the good players.
The up: If clubs are resourced only through their own earnings, then , unless you have a complete k***bhead as a manager and owner, it creates a "status quo" as the clubs that generate the most resources are undoubtedly in with more of a chance of dominating their respective theatres of operation , so at least an injection of outside capital into other clubs prevents this stagnation of alternative clubs ambitions.
Isn't the issue, what happens when the injections of capital stop? If the resource base hasn't been significantly changed you're looking at anything from Blackburn post-Walker to the full Portsmouth. Newcastle, who've had close to zero nett spend since 05/06, and Spurs, who have a big nett spend which i think is internally generated, have done it the old fashioned way which is more likely to be sustainable. For most of the rest, without a large stadium and/or a well-heeled support base, ambitions need to be realistic - Sunderland probably have the best chance to make a move, but I'm not holding my breath.
Martyn Ziegler @martynziegler
Have calculated Engl clubs TV cash split from CL: Chelsea £45m (£47.2m if win final) Man Utd £28m Arsenal £22.7m Man City £21.3m.
Retweeted by Oliver Kay
Have calculated Engl clubs TV cash split from CL: Chelsea £45m (£47.2m if win final) Man Utd £28m Arsenal £22.7m Man City £21.3m.
Retweeted by Oliver Kay
A far cry from the 50m we got last year. Then again, you're never going to always make it to a final on an annual basis.
28m for a group stage knock out really isnt the end of the world is it!
APOEL must be rolling in it now
APOEL must be rolling in it now
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/
"Manchester United – down £13.1 million (£44.3m - £31.2m). Although they received a minor uplift (€3 million) from being parachuted into the Europa League".
Not taking into consideration the downfall in gate receipts.
"Manchester United – down £13.1 million (£44.3m - £31.2m). Although they received a minor uplift (€3 million) from being parachuted into the Europa League".
Not taking into consideration the downfall in gate receipts.
It's a big chunk of cash. Add in 3m per game gate receipts.
From Swiss Ramble -
"There’s certainly some room for growth, as United were still a fair way behind the commercial income generated by some leading continental clubs, at least last season, when their £81 million compared to Bayern Munich’s extraordinary £142 million, Real Madrid’s £124 million and Barcelona’s £100 million.."
Hopefully the new Nike deal in 2014 will bring increased revenue. It is currently worth 25m a year and SwissRamble mentions they are aiming to increase this to 40m per year.
500m in interest payments and fees for the Glazer ownership. It's such a tragedy.
"There’s certainly some room for growth, as United were still a fair way behind the commercial income generated by some leading continental clubs, at least last season, when their £81 million compared to Bayern Munich’s extraordinary £142 million, Real Madrid’s £124 million and Barcelona’s £100 million.."
Hopefully the new Nike deal in 2014 will bring increased revenue. It is currently worth 25m a year and SwissRamble mentions they are aiming to increase this to 40m per year.
500m in interest payments and fees for the Glazer ownership. It's such a tragedy.
I think you're overstating things saying its a tragedy. In the end it's football, not life and death.
Of course you're right in one sense. But he may have used the word tragedy to convey that it was avoidable. We were let down by a lack of FA rules, and both fans, and very much the taxpayer, were let down by lack of company law.
Yeah, absolutely. It's been a very unfortunate and distasteful. I think we all devote a lot of time and emotion to our relationship with united and football. Whoever owns us and however disabled we are by any ownership it's still the same club. It's the same mufc, the same old Trafford and the same club ethos. Even in a sporting sense, for something to be a tragedy something needs to be lost and gone forever. We've not lost anything. United is just a bit disabled at the moment.
- Status