Man City. Worthy Champions

[Ted]

Wouldn't compare City and Chelsea.

Chelsea are/were bankrolled by Abramovich. His money was given to the club in loans. Weren't they running at a profit recently?

Man City's owners have put the money in the club, its future and Manchester. They've put it there and they don't want it back, the accounts will show you that.

 

[Knibbsworth]

I think managers are like players - they have a decade or so at the top if they're lucky (exceptions like Ferguson aside) and then they get overtaken. It looks like the same thing is happening to Mourinho. When he came to Chelsea he was totally revolutionary and a breath of fresh air. Now he's yesterday's man, even if he does win the odd pot.

Does show what a phenomenal Manager Fergie was that he was successful for so long against lots of new styles.

Utd during the Fergie years are like City and Chelsea now, nothing more than buying the league because few if any clubs at the time could afford to spend the kinds of money that Utd were.

There is a big difference in being bankrolled by a Middle Eastern or Russian billionaire and spending big money that the club has generated for itself. United have only spent money they can afford whereas if either of the billionaires get bored and withdraw funds Chelsea and City will go pop.

Manchester United are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt to American banks. Most definitely not self sustaining with either the Glazers business plan and Mourinho's spending.

*Edit: £536m debt this time last year

 

[Daz]

I think managers are like players - they have a decade or so at the top if they're lucky (exceptions like Ferguson aside) and then they get overtaken. It looks like the same thing is happening to Mourinho. When he came to Chelsea he was totally revolutionary and a breath of fresh air. Now he's yesterday's man, even if he does win the odd pot.

Does show what a phenomenal Manager Fergie was that he was successful for so long against lots of new styles.

Utd during the Fergie years are like City and Chelsea now, nothing more than buying the league because few if any clubs at the time could afford to spend the kinds of money that Utd were.

There is a big difference in being bankrolled by a Middle Eastern or Russian billionaire and spending big money that the club has generated for itself. United have only spent money they can afford whereas if either of the billionaires get bored and withdraw funds Chelsea and City will go pop.

Manchester United are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt to American banks. Most definitely not self sustaining with either the Glazers business plan and Mourinho's spending.

*Edit: £536m debt this time last year

The debt is serviced though by their huge turnover and income. Of course United fans don’t want to be paying the interest on the debt and would rather that money went back in to the club.

 

[Argyle sy]

I think managers are like players - they have a decade or so at the top if they're lucky (exceptions like Ferguson aside) and then they get overtaken. It looks like the same thing is happening to Mourinho. When he came to Chelsea he was totally revolutionary and a breath of fresh air. Now he's yesterday's man, even if he does win the odd pot.

Does show what a phenomenal Manager Fergie was that he was successful for so long against lots of new styles.

Utd during the Fergie years are like City and Chelsea now, nothing more than buying the league because few if any clubs at the time could afford to spend the kinds of money that Utd were.

There is a big difference in being bankrolled by a Middle Eastern or Russian billionaire and spending big money that the club has generated for itself. United have only spent money they can afford whereas if either of the billionaires get bored and withdraw funds Chelsea and City will go pop.

You are correct that Utd generated that income themselves, but that does not take away the fact that other teams quite simply could not compete with Utd financially for many years, so my observation is still valid and correct. If you are spending the kind of money that other clubs are simply unable to compete with then clearly you are buying the league, the only difference is how they received the income in the first place

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I think managers are like players - they have a decade or so at the top if they're lucky (exceptions like Ferguson aside) and then they get overtaken. It looks like the same thing is happening to Mourinho. When he came to Chelsea he was totally revolutionary and a breath of fresh air. Now he's yesterday's man, even if he does win the odd pot.

Does show what a phenomenal Manager Fergie was that he was successful for so long against lots of new styles.

Utd during the Fergie years are like City and Chelsea now, nothing more than buying the league because few if any clubs at the time could afford to spend the kinds of money that Utd were.

There is a big difference in being bankrolled by a Middle Eastern or Russian billionaire and spending big money that the club has generated for itself. United have only spent money they can afford whereas if either of the billionaires get bored and withdraw funds Chelsea and City will go pop.

You are correct that Utd generated that income themselves, but that does not take away the fact that other teams quite simply could not compete with Utd financially for many years, so my observation is still valid and correct. If you are spending the kind of money that other clubs are simply unable to compete with then clearly you are buying the league, the only difference is how they received the income in the first place

:scarf:

Totally agree

 

[Brussels Bureaucrat]

United's success in the pre-Abramovich era (say roughly 1992-2003) was the perfect combination of a number of circumstances.

Firstly, Old Trafford was far bigger than any other top-flight ground, especially after capacities were reduced post-Taylor Report, meaning that their matchday income was significantly greater than their competitors. They were always one of the best-supported clubs in the country, but this reinforced it in their favour while simultaneously harming other big clubs with smaller grounds (like Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal - the other leading clubs in the breakaway from the Football League which formed the Premier League). They could therefore afford to regularly cherry-pick the best players from other Premier League teams (Eric Cantona from Leeds, Roy Keane from Nottingham Forest and Andy Cole from Newcastle being two early examples).

Secondly, their commercial and merchandising operation was ahead of its time - they were the first to spot the opportunities in having an Official Auto Partner in Japan or whatever it was. They realised that there was money to be made by changing your home and away kits every season. And they were prepared to travel long-haul pre-season in order to grow their fanbase in the US and Asia.

Thirdly, they had an outstanding crop of young players, all of whom were the backbone of their sides for a decade (Scholes, Giggs, the Neville brothers, Beckham, Butt and other squad players), meaning that they had a very settled side with a core of players who'd been brought up together in an atmosphere of success.

And finally, they were managed by one of the greatest managers ever to work in English football, who had the good fortune to be allowed almost free rein by his chairmen throughout his reign.

It's hard to imagine that all of those things will ever coincide in one club again. I'm sure Man Utd will win the League again, but it's hard to imagine they'(or anyone else) will dominate for nearly two decades as they did under Alex Ferguson.

 

[Ham Green]

It's easy to forget just how big Manchester United were in the 90s, and just how much they milked the merchandise cash cow.

They must have been the first club to open a chain of merchandise shops; I have many unhappy memories of being taken to the one above Birthdays card shop in town, and the sheer range of goods far exceeded anything we'd ever seen. Most clubs at the time had a small portakabin and maybe a catalogue if they were very, very posh. But certainly not a chain of shops selling everything you could possibly imagine. They were probably the first club to put out a quarterly video magazine, a sort of pre-cursor to their own satellite channel, MUTV (they were almost certainly the first to have that, too).

They saw the changing landscape and they revolutionised the way football clubs market themselves.