Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…3536373941

Comments

  • #1142
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,637 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    CSF wrote: »
    Dya wanna quote me some of these fees?

    You accept they were paid wages completely out of line with what the club could support, yes?

    The spirit of his post is bang on the money, and you know this.


  • #1143
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    You accept they were paid wages completely out of line with what the club could support, yes?

    The spirit of his post is bang on the money, and you know this.
    So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?


  • #1144
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    CSF wrote: »
    So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?

    The inflated wages part is definitely true.


  • #1145
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    CSF wrote: »
    So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?

    He doesn't need to know the exact fees to be correct in his assertions.

    On a side note, I always welcome these threads as a sort of quality control filter for who's posts are worth taking seriously and who's aren't.


  • #1146
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    The inflated wages part is definitely true.
    Yeah but cmon its hardly worth a post to point that out. What he posted was pretty much the equivalent of saying 'Portsmouth went into administration because they spent too much on players and wages, another major reason for their demise was because they gave Avram Grant too much money to satisfy his habit of visiting brothels'

    I mean yeah Portsmouth went to bits because they pumped too much money into players and wages, and it is reported that Grant enjoys a visit to the oul sketchy gentlemans club, but I'd still look like an absolute numpty if I made the above post in anything other than a humorous manner. This chap is coming in here like he knows what he is talking about. The entire tone of the post suggests that. It is blatantly clear that he doesn't, so he should just stick to the obvious really.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    flahavaj wrote: »
    He doesn't need to know the exact fees to be correct in his assertions.

    On a side note, I always welcome these threads as a sort of quality control filter for who's posts are worth taking seriously and who's aren't.
    There were no fees for those players. Does he not need to know this to be correct in his assertions?


  • #1148
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    CSF wrote: »
    Yeah but cmon its hardly worth a post to point that out. What he posted was pretty much the equivalent of saying 'Portsmouth went into administration because they spent too much on players and wages, another major reason for their demise was because they gave Avram Grant too much money to satisfy his habit of visiting brothels'

    I mean yeah Portsmouth went to bits because they pumped too much money into players and wages, and it is reported that Grant enjoys a visit to the oul sketchy gentlemans club, but I'd still look like an absolute numpty if I made the above post in anything other than a humorous manner. This chap is coming in here like he knows what he is talking about. The entire tone of the post suggests that. It is blatantly clear that he doesn't, so he should just stick to the obvious really.

    Well given Shels fans never pass the oppurtunity to take digs at fans of other clubs who've experienced financial problems it probably is worth pointing it out.


  • #1149
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    Well given Shels fans never pass the oppurtunity to take digs at fans of other clubs who've experienced financial problems it probably is worth pointing it out.
    Ok well I'm sure he could have done that pretty simply without trying to seem educated on the issue, and avoided looking simple. I wouldn't mind if it was someone having a cheap dig or something, this chap was trying to act like he knew his ****.


  • #1150
    bohsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    CSF wrote: »
    Dya wanna quote me some of these fees?

    You think Crowe, big nose and horseboy took paycuts to join Shels?


  • #1151
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    bohsman wrote: »
    You think Crowe, big nose and horseboy took paycuts to join Shels?
    You do understand the difference between transfer fees and wages yeah? No1s trying to argue that players were grossly overpaid.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    CSF wrote: »
    Ok well I'm sure he could have done that pretty simply without trying to seem educated on the issue, and avoided looking simple. I wouldn't mind if it was someone having a cheap dig or something, this chap was trying to act like he knew his ****.

    So you're saying Shels did'nt give players inflated wages?

    Even the dogs in the street know thats the case.


  • #1153
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    So you're saying Shels did'nt give players inflated wages?

    Even the dogs in the street know thats the case.
    Oh my god. What are they putting in the Cork water?


  • #1154
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Only the novelty factor would have draw 15-20k to see a Bohemians v Shamrock Rovers game last night.

    I already alluded to this in my post. Or were you in so much of a rush to rebut me that you didn't read it?
    Het-Field wrote: »
    Getting on the high horse to extoll the virtues of the National League ("I just didnt want the LOI anywhere near the game") is wrong.

    It's not a high horse. I stand by the fact I that I don't want the LOI near these games unless there is a direct benefit for the LOI. And certainly not when the obverse is true: that the game is disruptive and harmful to the league here.
    Het-Field wrote: »
    The National League was incrementally building in the late 1990s and early 00s, but it blew its chance by failing to upgrade, by failing to practice sound economics, and by failing to reach into communites, and making people feel part of their local club. We have got to face facts that until the leage engages in a belt and braces overhaul, then we cannot fool ourselves that the league has much virtue at all.

    Thanks for the lesson, however, I don't need it. I know all this. I've criticized the league many times on this forum - in fact, I wrote this post only today.
    Het-Field wrote: »
    Last night was a good night for the players, who will rarely get to take on lads like Rooney, Owen, Valencia, Vidic etc ever again. In the 1990s large revenue was generated by having the likes of Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Liverpool, Leeds United, Nottingham Forest, and Sunderland over for friendly games.

    As a supporter (and paying club member) I no more care for what the platers want to do for kicks than, say, a Liverpool supporter cares about what non-international friendlies Torres wants to play in for personal reasons. All I care about is if it affects the club.
    Het-Field wrote: »
    The same applied last night, and if any significant amount of revenue is given back to the Airtricty League, then it cannot be a bad thing.

    There will not be any increased revenue steam into the league from this game. The select X1 got leathered in front of thousands of viewers; the players or cubs got nothing for appearing and clubs like Bohs got an extra game (and an injury) four days before a top of the table game with us?

    The FAI are in financial straits over the stadium and this game was to try and plug that. The profit from the game is long earmarked, I would say.
    Het-Field wrote: »
    Manchester United's economic plan is far more stable then people believe. United have been resident in the Champions League since 1993. The continue to amass large revenue as they qualify for the latter rounds consistently. They have won countless trophies in the top English league. They are always in the running for the top prize money, and there is no sign of this abating. They have international assets worth countless millions of pounds. An example of this would be the £80 Million paid for Christiano Ronaldo in 2009. I would even venture that Ryan Giggs would command a fee of £500,000 and Scholes could be flogged for twice that, in spite of the fact that both are on their last legs. They are a brand name which is as robust as the Dallas Cowboys, the Boston Redsox, and the Chicago Bulls. They enjoy large TV revenue from national and international broadcasters. They also have their choice of Sponsors, with groups like Vodafone, AIG and Aon paying large sums to have their names adourn the shirts. The likes of the Glazers will sell, but they will sell for a huge price, which will inevitably be paid by Middle Eastern consortia, or a consortium of Manchester United Fans, who are well backed with a strong stream of money.

    Bohemians etc took the Leeds United route. They speculated on consistent success, and success in the early rounds of European Competition. This carried with it the same perils which Leeds United faces, and ultimately endured. Bohemians were not a club which enjoyed the consistent domestic success of Manchester United, and were stupid to speculate on such things. This culminated in the embarressing cap-in-hand attempt by the club to illicit their seasons prize money, before the season was even finished. They signed players on inflated wages, which could only be paid by consistent LOI Championships, and qualification for The 2nd/3rd Round of UEFA Champions League Qualifications. Many players like Glen Crowe were signed in older age, and their potential sell on value was negligible. Yes, you would occasionally find a Wes Houlihan, Richie Foran, Kevin Doyle, Stephen Hunt, Joe Gamble, Keith Fahey, Noel Hut etc, but these are the exception rather then the rule.

    Manchester United fans are dissatisfied that they are not spunking out massive wads of cash on Messi, Tevez, Gyan, Huguain etc. They are greedy, nothing more and nothing less. They have the same levels of debt as teams like Real Madrid/Barcelona, but thier have a sustainable economic position based on their continued success, their brand name, and the large value player assets which they have.

    This is true.

    United don't exactly have a prudent financial model but they are a huge brand, generate money and are asset rich (ground, players, club, TV eights etc) and can always service their debt. Bohs don't make money and have a single compromised asset, that is, land in a moribund property market, and that's before you consider the Byzantine mess about who owns the ground.
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Of course I do (they continue to punch well above their weight given their squad :)), and yet I am always accused of having some ulterior agenda when I post on these sort of match threads.

    For me , they (with Fingal) actually play the most attractive football in the league.

    Fair enough: It was just the way you phrased the other post.


  • #1155
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    CSF wrote: »
    Oh my god. What are they putting in the Cork water?

    Typical Shels response.:rolleyes:

    You're taking issue with what he said when it was true. Clubs overspent including Shels and they went bust.


  • #1156
    bohsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    CSF wrote: »
    You do understand the difference between transfer fees and wages yeah? No1s trying to argue that players were grossly overpaid.

    Meh, skimming this thread tbh. 75k for Jason Byrne?


  • #1157
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    Typical Shels response.:rolleyes:

    You're taking issue with what he said when it was true. Clubs overspent including Shels and they went bust.
    No I'm taking issue with the things he said that weren't true. Massive difference.


  • #1158
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    bohsman wrote: »
    Meh, skimming this thread tbh. 75k for Jason Byrne?
    Did the chap mention Jason Byrne?


  • #1159
    dan1895
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    Typical Shels response.:rolleyes:

    You're taking issue with what he said when it was true. Clubs overspent including Shels and they went bust.

    Pretty sure Shels never went bust, Otherwise who have I been watching on Friday nights for the last four years:confused:


  • #1160
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,560 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Many players like Glen Crowe were signed in older age, and their potential sell on value was negligible. Yes, you would occasionally find a Wes Houlihan, Richie Foran, Kevin Doyle, Stephen Hunt, Joe Gamble, Keith Fahey, Noel Hut etc, but these are the exception rather then the rule.
    Stephen Hunt? What? Seriously why are you discussing a topic you clearly don't have a clue about?


  • #1161
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,637 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    stovelid wrote: »
    For me , they (with Fingal) actually play the most attractive football in the league.

    Fair enough: It was just the way you phrased the other post.

    Well, they try to get it down and play it as best they can. The problem with that approach is obviously that the off days where it doesn't click can be very grim indeed. It was the same last year in the First Division, UCD and Fingal were fun to watch all season.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    dreamers75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,558 ✭✭✭✭dreamers75


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Well, they try to get it down and play it as best they can. The problem with that approach is obviously that the off days where it doesn't click can be very grim indeed. It was the same last year in the First Division, UCD and Fingal were fun to watch all season.

    Buckley was a cracking play ball type player, he and Russell are of the same vein.

    Good to see they kept their playing styles as managers, reckon both will manage Pats at some stage in Buckos case again.


  • #1163
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    CSF wrote: »
    So its ok to get the facts completely wrong, as long as the spirit of the post is grand?

    1. I meant Shane Long, not Stephen Hunt.

    2.Transfer Fees were not published, it was simply what I had heard as a regular attendee at Tolka Park.

    Iv really touched a nerve with you.

    Let me tell you. I attended hundreds of Shelbourne matches between 1994 and today. I felt cheated when Shelbourne were being spoken of as a clapped out team, with no money to finance themselves. I felt cheated by the club when they team were booted out of the Champions League, and were lucky to hang onto the title which they won in a very competitive league in 2006. I felt cheated as I saw all the time and effort which I spent supporting Shels as being within an inch of being for nothing.

    The manner in which Shelbourne was managed was a disgrace. I defy you to tell me that it wasnt. I defy you to tell me that Shelboune didnt fail on the back of speculation, and pie in the sky ambitions ? I defy you to tell me that Ollie Byrne (RIP) was good for the club. I defy you to tell me that the nights against Deportivo La Coruna was worth the pasting Shelbourne recieved from Limerick last week. I defy you to tell me that anything which happened in 2003-2006 was worth the sheer disappointment of Limerick City's last goal which condemened Shelbourne to another season in Division One ?

    You are caught up in the semantics of my post. I am open to correction in terms of any transfer fees paid for the likes of Glen Crowe. I openly admit that I spoke of transfer fees on the back of in ground hearsay. I openly admit that I mistakenly referred to Shane Long as Hunt. However, the wages on which these players were signed was ludicrious, that much is true. I am also correct in accusing the likes of Ollie Byrne (RIP) as speculating, and gambling the clubs future on a Leeds United style pipe dream.

    You can get as hot under the coller with me as you like about small errors which I may have made, but it doesnt detract from the fact that Shelbourne fans were taken for a ride.


  • #1164
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    CSF wrote: »
    Yeah but cmon its hardly worth a post to point that out. What he posted was pretty much the equivalent of saying 'Portsmouth went into administration because they spent too much on players and wages, another major reason for their demise was because they gave Avram Grant too much money to satisfy his habit of visiting brothels'

    I mean yeah Portsmouth went to bits because they pumped too much money into players and wages, and it is reported that Grant enjoys a visit to the oul sketchy gentlemans club, but I'd still look like an absolute numpty if I made the above post in anything other than a humorous manner. This chap is coming in here like he knows what he is talking about. The entire tone of the post suggests that. It is blatantly clear that he doesn't, so he should just stick to the obvious really.

    What a pathetically pompous piece of rhetoric. You are suggesting that you know what you are on about, yet you have not rebutted some of my assertions. I am making a point that the National League was being run like a Governmental Department which couldnt stop spending.

    Obviously I have annoyed you about something more then the semantics of my post about transfer fees. Otherwise you would have let it go. Something tells me, you just cant take seeing Shelbourne criticised.


  • #1165
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    CSF getting OWNED.:pac:


  • #1166
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Well, what a shameful day for Irish football this turned out to be. Surprise sur****ingprise.


  • #1167
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Well, what a shameful day for Irish football this turned out to be. Surprise sur****ingprise.

    in the grand schme of things the only people who still remembers what happend is LOI regs everyone else coukdnt give a hoot.


    get over it tbh


  • #1168
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    ntlbell wrote: »
    in the grand schme of things the only people who still remembers what happend is LOI regs everyone else coukdnt give a hoot.


    get over it tbh

    I've forgotten the score already. It was nine wasn't it? I'm sticking with nine anyway for future reference, has a nice ring to it.


  • #1169
    ntlbell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,287 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    flahavaj wrote: »
    I've forgotten the score already. It was nine wasn't it? I'm sticking with nine anyway for future reference, has a nice ring to it.

    just round it up :pac:


  • #1170
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    ntlbell wrote: »
    just round it up :pac:

    10-0 so.

    Like Stuttgart 88, when everyone claims to have been there, it'll be 100-0 in a few years.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    ntlbell wrote: »
    in the grand schme of things the only people who still remembers what happend is LOI regs everyone else coukdnt give a hoot.
    Isnt that the point?

    And no, I wont get over it, Im a football fan and Ill give my opinion even when not asked, here and everywhere else. The people in red jerseys that packed that stadium and la-la'd along with the fake atmosphere are nothing short of an embarrassment to football in this country. This whole exercise was a pathetic, nauseating joke.
    extratime wrote:
    Why can't LoI win friends & influence people
    Comments3 comments
    by Simon O'Gorman Thu, Aug 05 2010
    No-one expected the Airtricity representative XI to beat Manchester United in the Aviva Stadium's first football match on Wednesday night. And while the 1-7 scoreline was hardly a ringing endorsement of the domestic league, it made a cruel kind of sense when the context of the two teams was honestly explored.

    Damien Richardson, the manager of the Irish side, was right when he said that the result counted for nothing. Practically speaking it was just another one of those meaningless pre- season friendlies. There was nothing material at stake and nothing as such to be gained by either side.

    Everybody knew this. So why then, with such an unthreatening background, was the Airtricity XI v Manchester United such a dispiriting experience?

    Perhaps it had something to do with the enforced party atmosphere. The Aviva Stadium is now open for business but if the domestic league had one hand on the scissors as the ribbon was cut there was little doubt that our invitation owed more to good manners than a burning desire for our company. No-one really wanted us to be there and this was no where more apparent than in the RTE studio.

    Chairman Bill could scarcely conceal his irritation at the evening’s obligations and, having recently struggled through a graceless World Cup, this new task of analysing a league he knows nothing about sorely tested his patience.

    Richard Sadlier, drafted temporarily into the A team, was expected to somehow represent the League of Ireland and dig out the big boys with a bit of much needed local knowledge but under Bill's accusatory glare he succumbed to the evidence that was in front of us all. He was on a hiding to nothing but did make the most pertinent point of the evening; how can anyone expect the domestic league to compete in such an environment when too few people pay to go and watch it?

    John Giles spent the evening in a state of benign confusion, like a favoured relative attending his granddaughters hip hop gig. Giles has been there and done that but limited his contribution to vague observations on the inequality of the teams and the oddness of the atmosphere and in doing so he was tickling the belly of the elephant in the room.

    The Aviva Stadium, Ireland's brand new football stadium, was full of Manchester United fans. Fathers from Inchicore, Phibsboro, Santry and Sligo brought their sons and daughters to worship at the altar of the Red Devils, unaware and uncaring that the other team were in fact their next door neighbours.

    In this age of multi-culturalism it is not a disheartening thing to hear a packed national stadium cheering a team from another country. But it is savagely disappointing to hear the cheer against a team from their own country.

    In the wider context, this event will not cost the domestic league a single supporter at this weekend's league programme. Not one. But nor will it lure a single red shirted football fan to the stands at Terryland Park, The Carlisle Grounds or Turners Cross. Perhaps, as Richard Sadlier suggested, this was an opportunity lost but in reality did such an opportunity ever really exist? The fracture between the Irish football public and Irish domestic football is profound. Would one single person have been persuaded to attend a League of Ireland game if the result had been any different? And if they had come, would they have stayed?

    Wednesday night's game showed us a huge community of football fans who have not only voted to support another league, but have done so to the absolute exclusion of the league that struggles to survive in their own towns and cities. As a nation we love football but so many of us want it wrapped up in gold or not at all.

    There is no revelation here. But for anyone who was confused by the emptiness that permeated Wednesday night's game it is worth bearing in mind that it lifted the rock on a football community that has emphatically rejected its own and reminded those of us that cannot imagine supporting a team that we could not go and watch that we are members of an overwhelmed minority. And that is almost unbearably sad.

    http://extratime.ie/newsdesk/articles/4044/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement