Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

They won't have a large fan base for another 5/10 years or so assuming they remain successful.

Top clubs including us only have so many fans because well, we are successful. Horrible truth of football.

26 years without a league title says different. Even when we were relegated we had the highest crowds in England.
 


So what are the excuses for that? Surely they have enough members and season ticket holders for a game against Barcelona?

Too cold for them most likely. Theyve just tweeted that's it's sold out now and a few lads I know are going "BOOM", like that's a massive achievement against Barca :lol: An absolute embarrassment of a club.
 
Why don't they mention their tallest corner flags? That would get a few more fans maybe.
 
Do City always have to resort to general sale?
Hold up, aren't there fans up like 523% (apparently)
ScreenShot20150204at10.50.36.png

http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/...base-up-523-manchester-united-fanbase-down-19
 
WTF is this. for example how could established club with huge fan base like Bayern have fans growth 224%. This is trully terible.

While Inter loses nearly half of theirs? Yeah, I find it unlikely.
 
@Colin129 - even if true, why the feck would we want 120m 'fans' who will happily jump ship just because we're not winning.

I don't care how many fans we lose, the ones who actually support United won't feck off and support somebody else.
 
Well to be fair City going from 50,000 fans to 261,500 fans is realistic. Having lower number of fans will always look much better with percentages are brought into play.
 
Too cold for them most likely. Theyve just tweeted that's it's sold out now and a few lads I know are going "BOOM", like that's a massive achievement against Barca :lol: An absolute embarrassment of a club.
Shiek's been busy buying tickets again I see. It will be a sell out, with a large number of blue seats as per normal.
 
Well to be fair City going from 50,000 fans to 261,500 fans is realistic. Having lower number of fans will always look much better with percentages are brought into play.

I read the link. This is what it says:

Sport explain that Manchester City's fanbase has soared to an approximate 200m, and they say that's an increase of 523%.

Manchester United are down 19% but there's no explanation of who has audited the figures, so many people will take it all with a pinch of salt.
 
Supposedly Manchester United at one point had 300mil fans world wide, a figure that can neither be proved nor disproved. 200mil for City becomes equally, if not more suspect. I would think building a fan base in Asia and North America would be key to that kind of rise and are they really that popular around the world given they have not done well in the CL yet?

But I guess I am slipping off topic since this post is not about a Bluemoon meltdown.
 
Yet to see or meet a single City fan in the States. Seems Arsenal caught on very well, probably due to their style of play. Chelsea also due to their success. The numbers above are absurd. If I were to guess, I would say it would be along the lines of United=Arsenal>>Liverpool=Chelsea>>>>Spuds>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stoke>>>Bognor>City
 
Supposedly Manchester United at one point had 300mil fans world wide, a figure that can neither be proved nor disproved. 200mil for City becomes equally, if not more suspect. I would think building a fan base in Asia and North America would be key to that kind of rise and are they really that popular around the world given they have not done well in the CL yet?

But I guess I am slipping off topic since this post is not about a Bluemoon meltdown.
Only 300m fans? I thought we had close to 700m followers, surely the majority of those can be classed as fans? :angel:
 
United have had the highest average attendance in the league every year except 6 times (where Liverpool had it) since 1965.
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/nav/attnengleague.htm

Notice the spike in average attendance in Division 2 and drop in Division 1 in 1975, that's the season United played in the 2nd division. They still had the highest average crowds of all clubs.
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/eng/aveeng1975.htm

And the only reason Liverpool had it in 93 is because we tore the Stretford end down and rebuilt it.

Even in the 95/96 season we were still top and periodically the North Stand had swathes of seats unavailable.
 
ok, so I wanted to find the topic about Man City and failing FFP, but could not find it for the life of me.

Anyway, Although I do not think it will happen, how bad would it hit them if they missed out on getting into the CL spots.
As they are already being scrutinised for failing last year, how hard would it hit them, if they did drop out
 
ok, so I wanted to find the topic about Man City and failing FFP, but could not find it for the live of me.

Anyway, Although I do not think it will happen, how bad would it hit them if they missed out on getting into the CL spots.
As they are already being scrutinised for failing last year, how hard would it hit them, if they did drop out
Not sure, for all our failings the morale still seems pretty high amongst the players. City's seems at rock bottom.
 
There's also the point that Gary Neville made a month or so ago - City have a first 11 with the oldest average age. Even their squad and bench players are all 25+. They're in huge need of redevelopment over the next 18-24 months and the sale value of most of their stars will only ever get smaller.

Their future FFP state is precarious, at very best.
 
There's also the point that Gary Neville made a month or so ago - City have a first 11 with the oldest average age. Even their squad and bench players are all 25+. They're in huge need of redevelopment over the next 18-24 months and the sale value of most of their stars will only ever get smaller.

Their future FFP state is precarious, at very best.

It is interesting. I don't know what their revenue is like these days, obviously a lot bigger than it was, but it is a fair point, looking at some of their players, the re-sale value of some isn't great
 
They were as bad as we've been today. All sideways passing, half huffing and sketchy defending. Watching it with my Mrs who is a blue and both agreed it was absolute turd.
 
Have they started with sack Pelligrini yet?

Look at us - laughing at them, laughing at us, laughing at them...
 
I wouldn't be suprised if they got rid when / if they get knocked out to Barca. Title is as good as gone it seems, so they would have nothing to play for.
He is going in the summer either way
 
There's also the point that Gary Neville made a month or so ago - City have a first 11 with the oldest average age. Even their squad and bench players are all 25+. They're in huge need of redevelopment over the next 18-24 months and the sale value of most of their stars will only ever get smaller.

Their future FFP state is precarious, at very best.
True only had 2 players under 28 in there starting 11 today
Kun 26 and hart 27
 
There's also the point that Gary Neville made a month or so ago - City have a first 11 with the oldest average age. Even their squad and bench players are all 25+. They're in huge need of redevelopment over the next 18-24 months and the sale value of most of their stars will only ever get smaller.

Their future FFP state is precarious, at very best.

Well no, it's not. If you actually look at the figures, our FFP situation is only going to continue to improve.
 
I wouldn't be suprised if they got rid when / if they get knocked out to Barca. Title is as good as gone it seems, so they would have nothing to play for.
He is going in the summer either way

One more loss and they'd be right in the rat race for top 4.
 
It is interesting. I don't know what their revenue is like these days, obviously a lot bigger than it was, but it is a fair point, looking at some of their players, the re-sale value of some isn't great

Only player they could sell for a large amount of money is Aguero (26). Silva is 29, Toure is 31, Dzeko is 28 (the likeliest to be sold imo).