Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

Colin129 said:
Could you imagine how well it would go down if Woodwoodwood came out & said that the reason we never brought that top midfielder was so they could reduce ticket prices by a fiver? Not sure that would go down too well with the fans tbh.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but at least every fan should know what's happening and not ask the question if it's possible for the club to be self sustaining without extorting the fans. That's just beyond stupid. If the fans accept these ticket prices, fair enough, I don't mind. But don't cry about the poor club being forced to charge those prices to survive, that's just embarrassing.

And I didn't use an example for a necessary player to strengthen the squad. I used an expensive buy for a position that really didn't need to be strengthened further at all.
 
Balu said:
Yeah, but at least every fan should know what's happening and not ask the question if it's possible for the club to be self sustaining without extorting the fans. That's just beyond stupid. If the fans accept these ticket prices, fair enough, I don't mind. But don't cry about the poor club being forced to charge those prices to survive, that's just embarrassing.

And I didn't use an example for a necessary player to strengthen the squad. I used an expensive buy for a position that really didn't need to be strengthened further at all.
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood me. I've no sympathy for the clubs. You seem to think I believe it's right for those prices to be charged. Or at least the phrase 'poor clubs' sends that message out. Is it possible for wages and fees to go up but not ticket prices for a team that doesn't have sugar daddy owner in the Uk.
 
Spiersey said:
You seem to have misunderstood me. I've no sympathy for the clubs. You seem to think I believe it's right for those prices to be charged. Or at least the phrase 'poor clubs' sends that message out. Is it possible for wages and fees to go up but not ticket prices for a team that doesn't have sugar daddy owner in the Uk.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. The broadcasting and commercial income of all top clubs is growing, so the overall revenue is growing even without the ticket prices going up. The club might not be able to spend as much as clubs with sugar daddy owners but that doesn't mean the club isn't self sustaining. And even if that wasn't the case, a club can still be self sustaining while reducing wages and spending less. That's usually happening if a club makes mistakes and has to face the consequences for it, nothing wrong with rebuilding a club after a bad spell, even if it sucks for the fans.
 
It's no coincidence that 61k is just a few more than the 60,361 at Arsenal. Our 75k is out of the question but they are trying to position themselves as a big club in as many ways as possible.
 
Spiersey said:
Instead of getting a dig in at a rival, you could answer the question. How would you feel if United got bought over by a billionaire, never interfered with anything, gave the manager funds and reduced ticket prices massively.
Click to expand...

I'd probably feel all giddy and log into the Bluemoon goes into meltdown thread and get some digs in at a rival.
 
Spiersey said:
Ah sorry, I never realised you were incapable of giving a non-shit response. Apologies.
Click to expand...

That's ok, I apologise too. I completely missed the point of this thread.

I don't think United will be bought out by a sugardaddy so I don't think I'll have to have conflicted feelings about being happy for a wealthy human rights abuser taking over the club. I think the valuation of the club prohibits the ability for one man just to buy and then spunk cash on the team and still lower ticket prices, minus any input into the running of the club (unless I suddenly find an oil well in the backyard). Buying United isn't like buying City or Chelsea with their limited history, smallish fan base and small capacity grounds. Clubs where money can be lavishly spent on them at a whim, as manager after manager rotates through the turnstiles more often than the fans. All the while, Sugar Dad desperately seeks the One that'll deliver him the European glory that his money deserves just so he can show off to his mates on his yatch. This is happening as the fans of these clubs convince themselves that "Man Utd bought their trophies, so why can't we" and pointlessly ask supporters of other clubs without these great paragons of wealth how they would feel if their club was owned by one. So in short what I'm trying to say is, how does it feel that City's sugardaddy is better that yours?
 
On Hart:

fecking sell this arrogant wanker in January. He is seriously fecking shite and has been since the start of last year.
Click to expand...

That is what you get for not fecking joe hart off the minute he decided he was bigger than the club.

Joe hart is nothing but a ****. A ****. A fecking useless, billy big bollocks ****.

Big test now for MP. he needs to show he is the boss of this football club and drop Hart immediately.

That utter utter wanker must never play for this club again.
Click to expand...

That's all I see before the forum crashed due to their meltdown :lol:
 
The lad took some boos and a bit of stick at OT and the forum but nothing like that
 
That is what you get for not fecking joe hart off the minute he decided he was bigger than the club.
Click to expand...

Well tbf to Hart on that one, he is England's undisputed number one, and it's not like he's playing at a great club (despite their owner) - so an argument might be made that he wouldn't be entirely wrong to think that. Aguero and Toure are certainly bigger than City. Maybe Silva.
 
Spiersey said:
On a side note, what would people's opinion's be on having a billionaire owner, who ran the club as the fans wanted it, pumped in money and made ticket prices around £15 a ticket?
Click to expand...

I'd be delighted with it, if... FFP came into full effect so there was no danger of us using the owners wealth to buy beyond our normal means.

That way we'd avoid the stupid circus we see at Chelsea and City, with 3 or 4 massive signings in every transfer window to replace the ones bought a year earlier who, strangely enough, haven't managed to form a cohesive team.

I honestly can't imagine what it must be like knowing that the players you are cheering on today will be almost entirely replaced within 2 or 3 years. How do you develop any kind of affinity for the players?
 
Zen86 said:
Threads like this are a bit glass-houses after what's been going on here recently.
Click to expand...

I dunno, lets compare. The general reaction on here towards say, Nani, yesterday was...

"feck sake, Nani! Stop shooting! Pass the fecking ball!"

Bluemoon towards Hart...

"Joe hart is nothing but a ****. A ****. A fecking useless, billy big bollocks ****."
 
Zen86 said:
Threads like this are a bit glass-houses after what's been going on here recently.
Click to expand...

Good point. Until I read this post I thought united had won every match we'd ever played and all our supporters loved everything the club had ever done.

I'm never going to take the piss out of City again.
 
Sir A1ex said:
I'd be delighted with it, if... FFP came into full effect so there was no danger of us using the owners wealth to buy beyond our normal means.

That way we'd avoid the stupid circus we see at Chelsea and City, with 3 or 4 massive signings in every transfer window to replace the ones bought a year earlier who, strangely enough, haven't managed to form a cohesive team.

I honestly can't imagine what it must be like knowing that the players you are cheering on today will be almost entirely replaced within 2 or 3 years. How do you develop any kind of affinity for the players?
Click to expand...

Lots of our players have been their longer than three years. I'm not sure that really applies to Chelsea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.