Airtricity 11 vs Man. Utd - MOD NOTE POST 457

Zebra3 · 05-08-2010 08:48AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Buying jerseys puts no money into the glazer pockets.

Really? Who do you think gets the money then? The tooth fairy?

Last night was pure car crash tv.

Topped off by Man United fans singing "ole, ole".

Thanks for the laugh. :pac:

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 09:02AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Buying jerseys puts no money into the glazer pockets.

Do you have the same reaction to Liverpool (or United fans) protesting about the owners of their clubs at the games? To do so they have bought tickets, which actually does put money in the owners pockets (unlike buying the new United kit)

The same reaction would be the same. I am a Liverpool supporter and for you to say that a club of Manchester United's says no money is being put into the club by buying jerseys is delusion. The money from the jerseys and the tickets from last night which Utd got off the FAI is going to the hedge funds the Glazers have you in.

In regards to tickets, LFC is so stuck to sell tickets this season 3,000 season tickets were offered to membership card holders because people are boycotting Anfield games this season. Arsenal with a week to go is not sold out, I have never seen that before at Anfield. Every bit of money that supporters from either LFC or United is going to pay off a debt that none of the genuine fans who understand the situation wanted.

To pay 45-60 euro to watch that last night with 49,000 people there shows what kind of mugs are around today. Where you can get a ticket for the Ireland/Argentina game for 40 euro next wednesday makes more sense.

I can say if Liverpool were playing up there last night, I would rather be watching my local team wexford youths than pay 60 euro to watch the kind of game which would happen if any big club played a LOI XI last night.

Going off track for a min but most of all people will be putting down the LOI after last night is highly unfair. As Rory Smith said last night, the LOI is a decent league and with decent players of Lower Championship/League One standard. If the FAI actually had the cop on to support the clubs by getting tv deals in place for RTE to show LOI teams in Europe over the summer months would create a bit of exposure for the League and the League would be better for it. The FAI need to get the grass roots sorted and soon otherwise the national team is going to suffer in the next decade or 2.

I give you one example, Jimmy Keohane who now has signed for Bristol City. Was the only LOI player in the Ireland U-19 squad which says a lot for the FAI's approach to grass roots football. Developed at grass roots level under the tutolage of Mick Wallace, Don Givens ruined our underage structures and the FAI didn't get rid of him and because of that we have no talent coming through that has being developed properly.

event · 05-08-2010 09:05AM

there is no way that ireland could have opened the stadium.
they have a friendly next week, the clubs would not have released their players two weeks in a row and nor would they have to, Fifa couldnt make them for the opening of a stadium.

so the next option would be two LOI teams against each other.

Who then?
not rovers, they are playing the next day. I doubt Bohs or Pats would want to, sure they are playing each other on Sunday. They wouldnt want to risk an injury.

So what two teams could be able to fill a stadium of about 50,000 people?

Other option would be two LOI XI's to play each other. Would people really go to see this though?

So what option do you think the FAI should have gone with for the opening, considering they would want to a full or as near to a full house as possible?

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 09:08AM

event wrote: »

there is no way that ireland could have opened the stadium.
they have a friendly next week, the clubs would not have released their players two weeks in a row and nor would they have to, Fifa couldnt make them for the opening of a stadium.

so the next option would be two LOI teams against each other.

Who then?
not rovers, they are playing the next day. I doubt Bohs or Pats would want to, sure they are playing each other on Sunday. They wouldnt want to risk an injury.

So what two teams could be able to fill a stadium of about 50,000 people?

Other option would be two LOI XI's to play each other. Would people really go to see this though?

So what option do you think the FAI should have gone with for the opening, considering they would want to a full or as near to a full house as possible?

Leave the opening game as Ireland vs. Argentina next week. This game was a non-event. Next week is the real thing but the FAI like the always are hungry for money. The stadium was tested last weekend for the rugby game and the world cup final which I was at was dummy tests. Last nights game didn't need to happen, it made money for the FAI and Utd, at the same made the LOI look like a pub league which it ain't.

It says to me the FAI don't 1. don't care about LOI football as much as they sau 2. money given to utd could have being used to improve LOI facilities and that of local club in the junior leagues in Ireland.

My home county in Wexford has one of the biggest leagues outside of Dublin and like many other junior clubs in Ireland. Funding is low and some clubs are going under. The FAI need to recheck their priorities and sharpish otherwise you could see a lot of people turning to other sports.

event · 05-08-2010 09:13AM

5ForKeeps wrote: »

Leave the opening game as Ireland vs. Argentina next week. This game was a non-event. Next week is the real thing but the FAI like the always are hungry for money. The stadium was tested last weekend for the rugby game and the world cup final which I was at was dummy tests. Last nights game didn't need to happen, it made money for the FAI and Utd, at the same made the LOI look like a pub league which it ain't.

no, afaik they wanted a dry run before an international. The rugby game was done by the IRFU, not the FAI. They wanted a game themselves first before the first international and that makes sense tbh

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 09:23AM

event wrote: »

no, afaik they wanted a dry run before an international. The rugby game was done by the IRFU, not the FAI. They wanted a game themselves first before the first international and that makes sense tbh

The FAI did a dry run with the 10,000 people that watched the World Cup Final. It was purely a financial money spinner because people in Ireland who are United fans were gulliable to pay 45-60 euro for a match where the quality of the opposition compared to United's side was not up to their standard.

Ireland, for our limitations will have a cracking game next week against Argentina and should of being the opener but the FAI as usual looking for a quick few squids. The truth is there for all to see last night was a farce and showed the FAI for what they truly are and at the expense of their own League that they run made the players that represented the LOI last night out to be pub players which they are not. Half of the players don't play with each other on a regular basis and a bit of perspective should have being the thought as what opposition should have played last night against Utd. Last night was cringeworthy stuff, as someone said earlier crash tv. All the utd fans singing ole ole was the cherry on top of shambles of a game.

RTE don't help the situation neither and last night they couldn't wait to stick it in, Giles, Sadlier and good old George Hamilton. Where were they during the summer when rovers, dundalk, bohs and fingal were playing games in Europe. Only when Rovers got Juventus did they fork out the cash. Systematic running of football in this country is a disgrace and its leader is shambles of a CEO. Until that changes, the national side which it might be rosy now but the future looks bleak unless something changes.

event · 05-08-2010 09:36AM

5ForKeeps wrote: »

The FAI did a dry run with the 10,000 people that watched the World Cup Final. It was purely a financial money spinner because people in Ireland who are United fans were gulliable to pay 45-60 euro for a match where the quality of the opposition compared to United's side was not up to their standard.

Ireland, for our limitations will have a cracking game next week against Argentina and should of being the opener but the FAI as usual looking for a quick few squids.

10,000 is not a full stadium, requiring all stewards and bar staff etc working. pretty much every stadium in the world does this, i dont see why it is such a big issue.

of course they were looking for money, but they are no different to any other football association.
they have to pay for the stadium, do you think they'd do it for free?

Mitch Connor · 05-08-2010 09:42AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Really? Who do you think gets the money then? The tooth fairy?

Last night was pure car crash tv.

Topped off by Man United fans singing "ole, ole".

Thanks for the laugh. :pac:

The money goes to Nike, not United. United don't get a penny from actual jersey sales, we signed a deal with United years ago (and has years left to run) that we get a fixed income every year from them and they get all the jersey money.

As for the United fans siging Ole Ole Ole.

It is a 'classic' Irish chant.

People bitch and moan about the fans there not supporting the LoI players, and when they did get some support, people bitch and moan about that.

Bitter, bitter, bitter little people.

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 10:05AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The money goes to Nike, not United. United don't get a penny from actual jersey sales, we signed a deal with United years ago (and has years left to run) that we get a fixed income every year from them and they get all the jersey money.

As for the United fans siging Ole Ole Ole.

It is a 'classic' Irish chant.

People bitch and moan about the fans there not supporting the LoI players, and when they did get some support, people bitch and moan about that.

Bitter, bitter, bitter little people.

Mitch you must be the only supporter who thinks the Glazers wouldn't get any profits from any jerseys.

Have a look at your own commenting on a boycott:

http://www.trulyreds.com/20100714/nike-gives-another-reason-to-boycott-new-shirts/

"Many Manchester United fans decided to stop buying any club merchandise while the club is under The Glazers control and Nike designers have given United fans another reason to do so with their latest awful designs of United home and away kits."

stovelid · 05-08-2010 10:09AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ah here, it's very bad when you can't make a simple comment on what happened in a game.

Of course I didn't expect him to keep Valencia "in his pocket". I was just surprised at how badly he was outclassed. In times watching premiership sides play lower league English teams in the early rounds of cup competitions - or Irish sides in Europe for that matter - I've never seen a full back struggle so comprehensively.

Ye are assuming some sort of agenda that isn't there tbh.

Fair enough, I jumped in hastily. I didn't see the game. I would assume that playing in a team of strangers would be hard enough, let alone against a team as strong as United. Must also be very demoralizing to play in front of 40+ thousand Irish people cheering for the team that is far better than you too. Powell also seems to be a shadow of the player he was last year too. Sounds like he had a shocker.

On a general note; Outside of the usual LOI/EPL battles, I have to say that these match threads (see Juve/Rovers too) sadden me a little. The league is struggling because of lack of interest, but I always detect a weird mixture of impartiality (that is, people honestly expecting both teams to compete equally cf: that part-time centre-half really got embarrassed by that famous international midfielder who is on 100k a week, didn't he?) and strange nascent patriotism (some of the same people that denigrate the league here seem to imply that the league are embarrassing the country when they can't beat the biggest teams in the world and blow in to LOI threads to dispense pats on the back when they get a result).

murpho999 wrote: »

People like success, sort of like how more people watch Ireland games when they have qualified for a World Cup. Then people who never watch Ireland play in qualifiers/friendlies suddenly watch Ireland. Is that wrong?

Although I find this a betrayal of what football is about (even for some EPL supporters), fair play to you for being truthful and not hiding your motives behind a load of hogwash like my brother loved them/the bad facilities drove me away/I have no club near me etc etc.

Mitch Connor · 05-08-2010 10:13AM

5ForKeeps wrote: »

Mitch you must be the only supporter who thinks the Glazers wouldn't get any profits from any jerseys.

Have a look at your own commenting on a boycott:

http://www.trulyreds.com/20100714/nike-gives-another-reason-to-boycott-new-shirts/

"Many Manchester United fans decided to stop buying any club merchandise while the club is under The Glazers control and Nike designers have given United fans another reason to do so with their latest awful designs of United home and away kits."

I don't care what other people think. The FACT is United signed a 300million deal with Nike. The deal handed over the merchandising rights to Nike, who get all profits from the sales, United get a fixed income of 23million per year.

People can think what they want, it does not stop them being wrong.

As for me being the only one that 'thinks' this, I am not. Plenty of the United fans on here know this.

stovelid · 05-08-2010 10:22AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't care what other people think. The FACT is United signed a 300million deal with Nike. The deal handed over the merchandising rights to Nike, who get all profits from the sales, United get a fixed income of 23million per year.

People can think what they want, it does not stop them being wrong.

As for me being the only one that 'thinks' this, I am not. Plenty of the United fans on here know this.

At the very least, why not just make it an spiritual boycott, even if it has a negligible financial effect Be one less person wearing the shirt until y(our) club is restored to sane ownership? Even if the shirt sales are seen to drop dramatically, it's something.

Most people here don't seem bothered anyway: they seem happy to buy knock-off shirts when the club is in millions of debt.

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 10:33AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't care what other people think. The FACT is United signed a 300million deal with Nike. The deal handed over the merchandising rights to Nike, who get all profits from the sales, United get a fixed income of 23million per year.

People can think what they want, it does not stop them being wrong.

As for me being the only one that 'thinks' this, I am not. Plenty of the United fans on here know this.

If you have any factual information and genuine on that please link it because I can't believe that a club the size of Utd with a chief executive like David Gill would allow that to happen. I know Nike do have deals where other nike club shirts can be sold abroad from example in Barcelona's club shop you can buy Utd, Arsenal shirts in there. Unless that is a deal Utd have in place with Nike that you say but please do find that information for me.

Pal · 05-08-2010 10:43AM

Please add me to the list of people disillusioned by last night's farce which should never have happened.

The FAI let our league down badly and gave a slap in the face to Irish fans like me who have been spending considerable amounts supporting the LOI and national team through
thick and thin.

I'm so annoyed by them that I couldn't be bothered supporting any more.
Go find somebody else to pay for your new stadium.

Spud83 · 05-08-2010 10:47AM

Mitch I think you are wrong on the shirt sales.

Link

The deal could be even more lucrative to United, who will get half of Nike's net profits generated from the licensing and retail operations, providing they stay in the top half of the Premiership and play in Europe.

ntlbell · 05-08-2010 10:47AM

Pal wrote: »

Please add me to the list of people disillusioned by last night's farce which should never have happened.

The FAI let our league down badly and gave a slap in the face to Irish fans like me who have been spending considerable amounts supporting the LOI and national team through
thick and thin.

I'm so annoyed by them that I couldn't be bothered supporting any more.
Go find somebody else to pay for your new stadium.

So if they had decided to have Boh's V's UTD and held in the aviva and bohs got done 7/8-1 would you be as annoyed/disillusioned?

Ush1 · 05-08-2010 10:52AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't care what other people think. The FACT is United signed a 300million deal with Nike. The deal handed over the merchandising rights to Nike, who get all profits from the sales, United get a fixed income of 23million per year.

People can think what they want, it does not stop them being wrong.

As for me being the only one that 'thinks' this, I am not. Plenty of the United fans on here know this.

How long does this deal run for?

Even if this is true, if you buy less shirts, Nike won't be sustaining a 23 million to United each year if they ain't getting it back in shirt sales.

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 11:14AM

Spud83 wrote: »

Mitch I think you are wrong on the shirt sales.

Link

Thank you!

parker kent · 05-08-2010 11:15AM

5ForKeeps wrote: »

Mitch you must be the only supporter who thinks the Glazers wouldn't get any profits from any jerseys.

Have a look at your own commenting on a boycott:

http://www.trulyreds.com/20100714/nike-gives-another-reason-to-boycott-new-shirts/

"Many Manchester United fans decided to stop buying any club merchandise while the club is under The Glazers control and Nike designers have given United fans another reason to do so with their latest awful designs of United home and away kits."

I have always thought it was as Mitch describes. It is basically a sponsorship deal in effect. This is the BBC report when United and Nike agreed the deal. The boycott is in line with MUST asking United fans to avoid any of United's sponsors as that will not please the sponsors which would put the Glazers under corporate pressure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1005794.stm

The world's richest football club, Manchester United, has signed a record-breaking £302.9m sponsorship and merchandising deal with US sports gear giant Nike.

The deal dwarfs previous Nike football sponsorship deals, such as its £7m a year sponsorship of Brazil's national team, and is thought to be the biggest of its kind ever signed.

It will effectively hand control of Manchester Utd's global replica-kit and merchandising business to the sportswear giant.

However, the amount paid to the club by Nike will be reduced if the team does not finish in the top half of the Premiership or take part in European competition.

Under the deal, Manchester Utd will grant exclusive rights to sponsor its gear, manufacture and sell its merchandise and operate Manchester United's existing retail operations.

The agreement starts on 1 August 2002 and will run for 13 years, althought Nike will have the option to end the arrangements in 2008.

Also the match last night was a good night. I don't see why people feel the need to always be extremely negative regarding anything involving United or Irish football. If John Delaney found a way to shít gold and puke up the cure for cancer some people would find fault with him. It was a good way to test the stadium before the international team play there.

Pal · 05-08-2010 11:17AM

ntlbell wrote: »

So if they had decided to have Boh's V's UTD and held in the aviva and bohs got done 7/8-1 would you be as annoyed/disillusioned?

The League of Ireland was shown up very badly by a complete mismatch in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Well done FAI. I know you have money issues but ffs, have you no foresight or consideration for the wellbeing of Irish football at all ?

A meaningful fixture between two Irish clubs had considerable merit and may not have sold out however the greater good of Irish football would have been better served. The resources and goodwill gained would have gone back into the clubs too where it is needed most.
Isn't that the duty of the custodians of our game ?

In reality, if that wasn't a runner the National Team should have played the opening match.

The IRFU played a meaningless exhibition game between two concocted Irish rugby teams and sold 30,000 tickets while the Dubs played in front of 60,000 at Croker.
Well done IRFU and your supporters.

If the FAI really wanted a circus, they should have got Duffys.

I really think that they just don't care.

homerjay2005 · 05-08-2010 11:17AM

the attendance last night was a bit puzzling. it gave it out as 49,800.

now, the stadium was almost full, but if 50,000 is the capacity, then theres no way there was only 200 empty seats.

most of the general sale tickets were sold out except one small patch in upper west, but considering the corporate and premium level seats were not fully populated, i would estimate that there were 2,000 empty seats roughly.

so, is the capacity actually 52,000 or did they bump up teh attendance a little?

prinz · 05-08-2010 11:21AM

Don't know why the 'who were you shouting for last night' is getting so much attention. Maybe it was only the section I was in but the vast majority of the fans in the Aviva were shouting for both teams. It was an exhibition match, nothing more. People wanted to see good football not bitch about the result one way or another. One minute it was Rooney, Rooney!, the next it was Ireland, Ireland.. The LOI team just didn't provide the spark to cheer them on as much as United did... so it seemed like people were cheering on United at the expense of the LOI XI.

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 11:26AM

parker kent wrote: »

I have always thought it was as Mitch describes. It is basically a sponsorship deal in effect. This is the BBC report when United and Nike agreed the deal. The boycott is in line with MUST asking United fans to avoid any of United's sponsors as that will not please the sponsors which would put the Glazers under corporate pressure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1005794.stm

That was from 2000 you signed a new contract with Nike last season.

homerjay2005 · 05-08-2010 11:32AM

5ForKeeps wrote: »

That was from 2000 you signed a new contract with Nike last season.

nope, we didnt. that deal runs until 2015. and Nike have complete control over all Uniteds merchandising and Retail operations. they even run the club megastores.

Before that deal was signed, uniteds turnover from shirt sales was £21 million, with a £2.1 million profit. this deal covers the same turnover and more (23million) but now is money straight into Uniteds hands. i am sure they have a huge profit at Nike, but this is fully, as far as i am aware, NIkes deal.

5ForKeeps · 05-08-2010 11:37AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

nope, we didnt. that deal runs until 2015. and Nike have complete control over all Uniteds merchandising and Retail operations. they even run the club megastores.

Before that deal was signed, uniteds turnover from shirt sales was £21 million, with a £2.1 million profit. this deal covers the same turnover and more (23million) but now is money straight into Uniteds hands. i am sure they have a huge profit at Nike, but this is fully, as far as i am aware, NIkes deal.

Okie dokie.

To put the deal into perspective, it works out at £23.3m a year for United. A statement from the club's plc said: "Manchester United intends to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes". This is likely to include spending on new players, wages and development of United's already extensive international set-up. this from that Independent article in 2000. I think priorities have changed since then with the glazers takeover in 2005.

So Utd have earned over 200 million with Nike on the shirt deal alone.

Ush1 · 05-08-2010 11:41AM

Way off topic at this point but it's surely a good move to not line the pockets of Manchester United sponsors if you don't want the club to get money?

If sales of shirts decrease enough I'd assume Nike will end the deal at the first chance they can thus stopping said income to United.

ntlbell · 05-08-2010 12:07PM

Pal wrote: »

The League of Ireland was shown up very badly by a complete mismatch in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Well done FAI. I know you have money issues but ffs, have you no foresight or consideration for the wellbeing of Irish football at all ?

A meaningful fixture between two Irish clubs had considerable merit and may not have sold out however the greater good of Irish football would have been better served. The resources and goodwill gained would have gone back into the clubs too where it is needed most.
Isn't that the duty of the custodians of our game ?

In reality, if that wasn't a runner the National Team should have played the opening match.

The IRFU played a meaningless exhibition game between two concocted Irish rugby teams and sold 30,000 tickets while the Dubs played in front of 60,000 at Croker.
Well done IRFU and your supporters.

If the FAI really wanted a circus, they should have got Duffys.

I really think that they just don't care.

Sticking two LOI teams in wouldn't have filled 1/4 of the staduim.

The people who whould have went would have been regular LOI fans.

RTE probably wouldn't have showed it, if they did, the same LOI fans who watch LOI on the box would have watched it and it all would have been a bit pointless.

Do you really think it was an exervise in converting die hard united fans to start turning up to watch fingal et al?

I don't think so

Pal · 05-08-2010 12:16PM

ntlbell wrote: »

Sticking two LOI teams in wouldn't have filled 1/4 of the staduim.

Agree. It would have probably filled 3/4

ntlbell wrote: »

The people who whould have went would have been regular LOI fans.

Disagree. A lot of people would have gone to see the new stadium.

ntlbell wrote: »

RTE probably wouldn't have showed it

Agree. Setanta would have.

ntlbell wrote: »

Do you really think it was an exervise in converting die hard united fans to start turning up to watch fingal et al?
I don't think so

Agree

I kind of get the feeling you're missing my point.
I have nothing against United.
My gripe is with the FAI.

CR 7 · 05-08-2010 12:29PM

What's with the over analysis of why the match was on? They probably had a look at which teams were available for a pre season game to advertise the new stadium, and thought it'd be a nice touch to involve some irish representation. No pleasing some people.

It seems the non barstoolers would only be happy if it had been a game between the irish team and a team bad enough that they could've drawn the game, but good enough to fill the stadium, and on in the middle of next winter at 3 in the morning, so it doesn't interfere with any other games. And only season ticket holders at every single irish club could attend.

PHB · 05-08-2010 12:31PM

I must say, I have been there twice now and have found the stadium to be distinctly average.

Airtricity 11 vs Man. Utd - **MOD NOTE POST 457**

Comments

Airtricity 11 vs Man. Utd - MOD NOTE POST 457