Premier League 17/18

Kenny said:
That's my adopted team, since around 2010 and Bale / Modric / Defoe. With Poch they've been punching above their weight, playing attractive, sound soccer at a budget well below the big four. Oh they'll break your heart in the end, but that's always part of the deal unless you're one of those dicks that adopt Chelsea or man united. Added bonus : it's so much fun to hate on arsenal
Click to expand...
Two reasons for me why Arsenal's current form is enjoyable.

1. I'm a Giroud fan and they put him out to pasture.
2. So they continue making videos like these.

 
Fake Jew said:
Anyone know what Premier League team I should support. I'm pretty sick of watching as a neutral. I've been thinking Tottenham because of Jewish origins but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Before I had a team I was playing rec soccer and the guy who ran the team was an arsenal fan as he grew up next to highbury stadium and all his mates were on the team and they were all arsenal fans...... I rue the day I met them....... I am now an arsenal supporter.

If I had to do it over again, liverpool. Just as shit trophy cabinet as arsenal over the last decade, but the games are so much more fun.

City are good if you wanna be the nouveau riche yankees.
ManU are good if you wanna be the yankees who can't get their shit together lately.
Chelsea are good? But I just, no, I can't. Something about them is off putting (probably the years of mourinho)
Spurs are good under pochettino, who knows when he leaves if they will go back to their shit ways. I am obliged to call them shit as an gunner.

All that said, its hard to like a team currently for what they are doing because the coaches change and the play style changes. Since i have been watching liverpool have been manic and fun to watch, but that could change. I mean arsenal used to be awesome, and now, ugh, so not fun to watch. Currently city really are the team to watch if you want good soccer, with a great manager, and lots of big matches.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
I predict Spurs are about to get bullied in the summer transfer market. Can't see them keeping Eriksen around another year.

Man only has so long to make money as an athlete, and Tottenham has a wage structure in place that they won't deviate from.

https://en.as.com/en/2018/01/17/football/1516210881_006124.html
Click to expand...

I thought the main point to the new stadium, both increased capacity and renting it out to the NFL a few times a year, was to generate the increased revenue for them to be competitive on things like this?
 
Davo15 said:
I thought the main point to the new stadium, both increased capacity and renting it out to the NFL a few times a year, was to generate the increased revenue for them to be competitive on things like this?
Click to expand...
You think they’ll all of a sudden double or triple half their lineup’s wages? Aledwereld is on well under $100k, as is pretty much the whole team.

Kane’s quotes about Coutinho leaving would worry me, too, were I a spurs fan.

ETA: if they happen to not make UCL, I think you’ll see a significant exodus.
 
You might be right. They should nearly be doubling their gate receipts (compared to White Hart Lane not to this year at Wembley of course) and I don't know how much their getting for pimping the place to the NFL. I know it's a lot but probably not significant enough to compete with Liverpool/United never mind City and Chelski, They could stay ahead of Arsenal for the near future though which to Spurs fans I suppose would be something.
 
Davo15 said:
You might be right. They should nearly be doubling their gate receipts (compared to White Hart Lane not to this year at Wembley of course) and I don't know how much their getting for pimping the place to the NFL. I know it's a lot but probably not significant enough to compete with Liverpool/United never mind City and Chelski, They could stay ahead of Arsenal for the near future though which to Spurs fans I suppose would be something.
Click to expand...
United makes so much more than anyone else, it’s disgusting. The whole club is available for sponsorship if you offer a little $.

I do agree that Arsenal is in a tight spot. I’d like to see them suffer as a club. The best thing for my club woukd be an epic failure of Arsenal and Totttenham. It gives Liverpool the chance to make up for the failures of prior ownership while keeping rock solid financial footing.

Interestingly, I think Chelsea is in a weird place roster-wise.

Manu will always be an issue for everyone because of their revenues. From a footballing perspective, City and Liverpool are the teams poised to dictate the league. Going back 7-8 years, FSG had identified MCFC as the team that mattered in the league. That’s a credit to both clubs’ leadership.

Next year might be fun after Klopp gets Keita and whomever else they buy. Still have 70M from last summer’s budget, plus next summer’s plus Coutinho.

I predict a blockbuster keeper buy and a top notch young attacker (Pulisic or Lemar or similar) totaling something over 175 or there about. Then, with some good fortune re: injuries, we’ll actually make a run at a league title.
 
Midas Mulligan said:
United makes so much more than anyone else, it’s disgusting. The whole club is available for sponsorship if you offer a little $.
Click to expand...
This is one of those annoying issues where I know the answer (I think so at least), yet it doesn't add up to my satisfaction, so I ask anyway in case I'm missing something.

Why does Man United make so much more revenue than anyone else in the PL?
I know they were the dominant winning team for a long time at the right time, when soccer became more global and allegiances and fandoms were formed and they are still taking advantage of that. And it's only been 4 (building to a near certain 5) years since they last won (and they won 5 of 6 before that).
But the sport and league have grown even more in the last decade as new teams have started to win some. Yet MU's revenue dominance is really overwhelming and seemingly disproportionate. Do they have such a locked in advantage that it's almost impossible for anyone to catch up? If they go another 5-6 years without a title would it even make a difference?
 
mgarbowski said:
This is one of those annoying issues where I know the answer (I think so at least), yet it doesn't add up to my satisfaction, so I ask anyway in case I'm missing something.

Why does Man United make so much more revenue than anyone else in the PL?
I know they were the dominant winning team for a long time at the right time, when soccer became more global and allegiances and fandoms were formed and they are still taking advantage of that. And it's only been 4 (building to a near certain 5) years since they last won (and they won 5 of 6 before that).
But the sport and league have grown even more in the last decade as new teams have started to win some. Yet MU's revenue dominance is really overwhelming and seemingly disproportionate. Do they have such a locked in advantage that it's almost impossible for anyone to catch up? If they go another 5-6 years without a title would it even make a difference?
Click to expand...
You ask a good question. In the (limited) reading on the topic I've done, I only ever see the "why" they have more revenues, not the "how" (or flip that, if it better suits your semantic paradigm). One example I'm aware of is they have an apparel deal that is ~35-40M pounds more than LFC.

It could be that they simply pioneered the cultivation of new rev streams, and others are playing catch up. Or they may just better leverage their supporter base and its size. I just don't know.

Dan Jones, partner in the Sports Business Group at Deloitte, said Manchester United's record revenues were achieved by "phenomenal commercial revenue growth".

He added: "In recent years, their ability to secure commercial partnerships with value in excess of that achievable by their peers has been the crucial factor in enabling the club to regain their place at the top of the money league.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38655480

eta: Here's the report.
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pag...ticles/annual-review-of-football-finance.html
Also, probably more in that UEFA FFP report I posted. (spoiler: there isn't based on my quick look at it) http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles...lublicensing/02/53/00/22/2530022_DOWNLOAD.pdf
 
mgarbowski said:
Why does Man United make so much more revenue than anyone else in the PL?
Click to expand...
I have no evidence to back this up but I think their dominance of the league happened just around the same time Fox Soccer Channel was formed to broadcast the Premier League in the US. Not saying that's the sole reason but it could be a factor.
 
mgarbowski said:
This is one of those annoying issues where I know the answer (I think so at least), yet it doesn't add up to my satisfaction, so I ask anyway in case I'm missing something.

Why does Man United make so much more revenue than anyone else in the PL?
I know they were the dominant winning team for a long time at the right time, when soccer became more global and allegiances and fandoms were formed and they are still taking advantage of that. And it's only been 4 (building to a near certain 5) years since they last won (and they won 5 of 6 before that).
But the sport and league have grown even more in the last decade as new teams have started to win some. Yet MU's revenue dominance is really overwhelming and seemingly disproportionate. Do they have such a locked in advantage that it's almost impossible for anyone to catch up? If they go another 5-6 years without a title would it even make a difference?
Click to expand...

Simply put, it's almost entirely down to the fact that for years now they have been the best at persuading just about any company on the planet to pay vastly over the odds to be their sponsors. They were one of the pioneering teams in the art of signing "Official Vietnamese Rechargeable Battery Supplier" or "Official Malaysian Fresh Orange Juice Provider, But Only The Stuff With Bits In Because We've Already Got A Sponsor For Smooth Orange Juice In Malaysia" type sponsorship deals which rake in far, far more money than you'd really expect, plus of course they absolutely extort companies for the primary shirt and supplier sponsorship deals.
 
Falastur said:
Simply put, it's almost entirely down to the fact that for years now they have been the best at persuading just about any company on the planet to pay vastly over the odds to be their sponsors. They were one of the pioneering teams in the art of signing "Official Vietnamese Rechargeable Battery Supplier" or "Official Malaysian Fresh Orange Juice Provider, But Only The Stuff With Bits In Because We've Already Got A Sponsor For Smooth Orange Juice In Malaysia" type sponsorship deals which rake in far, far more money than you'd really expect, plus of course they absolutely extort companies for the primary shirt and supplier sponsorship deals.
Click to expand...

What I'm taking from this and from what Midas Mulligan posted is that it is more that they are really good at the business side, rather than a straight derivation of their on-field dominance and substantial fanbase. Not that the latter aspects are irrelevant, to be sure, but they maximize those factors beyond what one might expect by being extremely sharp dealers. Interesting if so, and perhaps harder for me to hate them.
 
mgarbowski said:
What I'm taking from this and from what Midas Mulligan posted is that it is more that they are really good at the business side, rather than a straight derivation of their on-field dominance and substantial fanbase. Not that the latter aspects are irrelevant, to be sure, but they maximize those factors beyond what one might expect by being extremely sharp dealers. Interesting if so, and perhaps harder for me to hate them.
Click to expand...

They probably earn perhaps 10-15% more revenue than traditional rivals (taken as an average across each team in an average year, obviously there will be years that figure is much higher or lower) based on competition earnings, especially now they (and in fairness, all of the other major English teams) are not now consistently reaching the final stages of the Champions League. Their commercial income, however, is almost 3x higher than most other English teams. City are their nearest rivals in commercial revenue (contrary to popular belief, City's UAE-based revenue is not the main part of their sponsorship revenue, for the record) and City still make £100m a season less than them in that category.

If you want to see some figures to look into this stuff, I'd recommend reading through the Deloitte Football Money League reports:

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...oitte-uk-sport-football-money-league-2017.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shwafta
NYCFC Survivor 5 Winner!
Replies
0
Views
202
Shwafta
Shwafta
Shwafta
NYCFC Survivor 2023 Winner!
Replies
0
Views
1,209
Shwafta
Shwafta
mgarbowski
NYCFC Season Discussion 2024: The Definition of NYCFC is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over and Getting the Same Result
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
11,718
gbservis
gbservis
Shwafta
NYCFC Survivor 2022 Winner!
Replies
7
Views
2,410
Shwafta
Shwafta
mgarbowski
  • Poll Poll
NYCFC Season Discussion 2023: We Know What We Are, But Not What We May Be
15 16 17
Replies
332
Views
20,456
FootyLovin
FootyLovin
Back
Top