Though after seeing VC's last comment I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent or even honest answer.... Oh welll 5 mins of my life I'm never getting back
...................
I am not really sure what you are arguing against me about, you have not made it clear. Please do.
the amount in the man utd coffers from Nike is a direct result of the kit deal.
***
Correct
but United don't get any more money even if Nike are savvy enough to sell more units than originally projected at the time that the contact was agreed. Your point was that United would benefit financially unethically if the Gingham shirt sold well.
Which they clearly won't.
Every football club has a kit deal. Even yours I have heard.
comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 14 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
**
redinthehead... Id give this one up... you clearly thought that the cash for United shirts jumped straight out of the tills in the Trafford Centre directly into Uncle Malcs current account... which was the basis of your arguement
----
Umm no, you didnt understand.
Basically fergie having a go at man city's spending... Ie that it's not "fair"/ethical, is pretty myopic when considering man utd signed a deal with Nike in which Nike are not restricted by the terms of the charter which man utd signed upto to limit the number of home shirts.
Basically he should be a little introspective re his own club.
And on the other hand at least the money man citys owner is splashing is his own, and he is spending it on football rather than loans and debt payoff.
Basically man city's cash will benefit football.
but United don't get any more money even if Nike are savvy enough to sell more units than originally projected at the time that the contact was agreed. Your point was that United would benefit financially unethically if the Gingham shirt sold well.
-----
If man utd told Nike that they could only produce a new home kit every two seasons, the deal would have been worth less to Nike, and therefore less to Man Utd... Do you see that?
Every football club has a kit deal. Even yours I have heard.
.................
Same principal as ours I believe. The shirt firm, can't remember who they are, pay Liverpool a set amount each season over a set period of years.
Ie the deal with Nike, the payments they make was on the understanding they are allowed to make a new home kit every season.
If before the deal was struck man utd insisted on Nike following te charter the amount Nike would have paid is less (because they will be selling fewer units over two years)
Tell me you understand this!
God why is everyone getting shirty?
Umm no, you didnt understand.
Basically fergie having a go at man city's spending
.....................
Do you think they have spent a lot?
After all, their spending (and Chelsea's) has contributed to your dropping out of the CL places.
Interestingly Mancini has been quoted today as saying that he sees City rivaling Barca and Real in terms of spending. Buying 2 or 3 players each year for large sums. Will be interesting to see if they can secure these signings whilst staying in line with the FFP rules - if they ever come in.
Basically man city's cash will benefit football.
**
Its not City's cash its Sheik Watshisname's.
How can using it to pay the wages that City pay, benefit football?
Why cant football clubs release a new shirt every year. What is unethical about it?
If before the deal was struck man utd insisted on Nike following te charter the amount Nike would have paid is less (because they will be selling fewer units over two years)
.......................
Do you know what was in the deal before it was struck?
Two hours ago, you didn't even know how the deal worked.
Why cant football clubs release a new shirt every year. What is unethical about it?
-----
Because the premier league charter which all clubs signed up to stated they would only have a new home kit every two years. To not over encumber families financially to get kids a new shirt every season.
To go against that is unethical.
I am not really sure what you are arguing against me about, you have not made it clear. Please do.
Do you believe the MUFC business plan is better for Football than the MCFC business plan? One takes money from the best supported club in the world and gives it to banks and loan companies, the other invests monies in their club from outside of football looking to improve the club (Players and infrastructure) to set it up for the future?
Apparantly one is perfectly acceptable the other the work of the devil and must be stamped out
Do you know what was in the deal before it was struck?
----
Well it certainly wasn't anything to restrict the number of home shirts to one every two years was it?
All clubs release a new shirt. Did they sign this charter too.?
To not over encumber families financially to get kids a new shirt every season.
***
you are actually not legally obliged to buy your kids football shirts if you dont want to or cant afford to.
Do you believe the MUFC business plan is better for Football than the MCFC business plan?
.........................
I have not commented on either clubs buisness plan, especially Cities, as I have no idea what it is.
In fact, I have not seen anyone else comment on either clubs buisness plan.
RedBlackandWhiteside - agreed, why can't parents just learn to say no? x
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Do you know what was in the deal before it was struck?
----
Well it certainly wasn't anything to restrict the number of home shirts to one every two years was it?
....................
Was it illegal?
From an outside perspective if man city are spending on players it means other teams benefit financially.
Thereby football benefits.
Well it certainly wasn't anything to restrict the number of home shirts to one every two years was it?
....................
Was it illegal?
-----
No VC, unethical to which you already agreed.
comment by X (U4074)
posted 47 seconds ago
RedBlackandWhiteside - agreed, why can't parents just learn to say no? x
..........................
Probably because some parents are not very bright, and end up giving birth to the Redinthehead's of this world.
Now that really is unethical.
From an outside perspective if man city are spending on players it means other teams benefit financially.
***
Its not about transfer fees anymore (this money stays in football) its about personal terms now. ie Wages. (which doesnt).
"Because the premier league charter which all clubs signed up to stated they would only have a new home kit every two years. To not over encumber families financially to get kids a new shirt every season.
To go against that is unethical."
The inaugural premier league charter isn't a legally binding document. Can you name me any club who has abided by the 'every two years' guideline? You might, but you'll have to do some research and I bet there wont be many (don't bother with Liverpool, they've broken their word on the charter as well).
So are there degrees of ethics? Liverpool have had 13 home kits in the PL era, United 15. Tottenham have had 17.
If you're arguing that football puts a burden on families you won't get many arguments. If you're arguing that this is a phenomenon limited to Manchester United you're a bit thick.
The main problem I have with FFP is that it has suddenly turned the average fan into someone who thinks they have a grasp on economics in football and business in general. Threads like this pop up with increased regularity that show that absolutely not to be the case.
People also seem to be very blinkered to past history and the financial state and model that football has always followed, none of the things that people think are new actually are.
On the whole, I would suggest that people focus on on the pitch activities, unless they really understand what they are talking about.
When I was a kid I got a shirt (and kit) that went down to the middle of my thighs, and I got a new one when it stopped covering my stomach regardless of how many kits were released in the mean time x
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 8 of 14
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 15/5/12
Though after seeing VC's last comment I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent or even honest answer.... Oh welll 5 mins of my life I'm never getting back
...................
I am not really sure what you are arguing against me about, you have not made it clear. Please do.
posted on 15/5/12
the amount in the man utd coffers from Nike is a direct result of the kit deal.
***
Correct
but United don't get any more money even if Nike are savvy enough to sell more units than originally projected at the time that the contact was agreed. Your point was that United would benefit financially unethically if the Gingham shirt sold well.
Which they clearly won't.
Every football club has a kit deal. Even yours I have heard.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)
posted 14 minutes ago
arguments put forward that state Nike would pay the same amount whether man utd restricted the number of new kits the deal covers are of the naive variety.
**
redinthehead... Id give this one up... you clearly thought that the cash for United shirts jumped straight out of the tills in the Trafford Centre directly into Uncle Malcs current account... which was the basis of your arguement
----
Umm no, you didnt understand.
Basically fergie having a go at man city's spending... Ie that it's not "fair"/ethical, is pretty myopic when considering man utd signed a deal with Nike in which Nike are not restricted by the terms of the charter which man utd signed upto to limit the number of home shirts.
Basically he should be a little introspective re his own club.
And on the other hand at least the money man citys owner is splashing is his own, and he is spending it on football rather than loans and debt payoff.
Basically man city's cash will benefit football.
posted on 15/5/12
but United don't get any more money even if Nike are savvy enough to sell more units than originally projected at the time that the contact was agreed. Your point was that United would benefit financially unethically if the Gingham shirt sold well.
-----
If man utd told Nike that they could only produce a new home kit every two seasons, the deal would have been worth less to Nike, and therefore less to Man Utd... Do you see that?
posted on 15/5/12
Every football club has a kit deal. Even yours I have heard.
.................
Same principal as ours I believe. The shirt firm, can't remember who they are, pay Liverpool a set amount each season over a set period of years.
posted on 15/5/12
Ie the deal with Nike, the payments they make was on the understanding they are allowed to make a new home kit every season.
If before the deal was struck man utd insisted on Nike following te charter the amount Nike would have paid is less (because they will be selling fewer units over two years)
Tell me you understand this!
posted on 15/5/12
God why is everyone getting shirty?
posted on 15/5/12
Umm no, you didnt understand.
Basically fergie having a go at man city's spending
.....................
Do you think they have spent a lot?
After all, their spending (and Chelsea's) has contributed to your dropping out of the CL places.
posted on 15/5/12
Interestingly Mancini has been quoted today as saying that he sees City rivaling Barca and Real in terms of spending. Buying 2 or 3 players each year for large sums. Will be interesting to see if they can secure these signings whilst staying in line with the FFP rules - if they ever come in.
posted on 15/5/12
Basically man city's cash will benefit football.
**
Its not City's cash its Sheik Watshisname's.
How can using it to pay the wages that City pay, benefit football?
Why cant football clubs release a new shirt every year. What is unethical about it?
posted on 15/5/12
If before the deal was struck man utd insisted on Nike following te charter the amount Nike would have paid is less (because they will be selling fewer units over two years)
.......................
Do you know what was in the deal before it was struck?
Two hours ago, you didn't even know how the deal worked.
posted on 15/5/12
Why cant football clubs release a new shirt every year. What is unethical about it?
-----
Because the premier league charter which all clubs signed up to stated they would only have a new home kit every two years. To not over encumber families financially to get kids a new shirt every season.
To go against that is unethical.
posted on 15/5/12
I am not really sure what you are arguing against me about, you have not made it clear. Please do.
Do you believe the MUFC business plan is better for Football than the MCFC business plan? One takes money from the best supported club in the world and gives it to banks and loan companies, the other invests monies in their club from outside of football looking to improve the club (Players and infrastructure) to set it up for the future?
Apparantly one is perfectly acceptable the other the work of the devil and must be stamped out
posted on 15/5/12
Do you know what was in the deal before it was struck?
----
Well it certainly wasn't anything to restrict the number of home shirts to one every two years was it?
posted on 15/5/12
All clubs release a new shirt. Did they sign this charter too.?
To not over encumber families financially to get kids a new shirt every season.
***
you are actually not legally obliged to buy your kids football shirts if you dont want to or cant afford to.
posted on 15/5/12
Do you believe the MUFC business plan is better for Football than the MCFC business plan?
.........................
I have not commented on either clubs buisness plan, especially Cities, as I have no idea what it is.
In fact, I have not seen anyone else comment on either clubs buisness plan.
posted on 15/5/12
RedBlackandWhiteside - agreed, why can't parents just learn to say no? x
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Do you know what was in the deal before it was struck?
----
Well it certainly wasn't anything to restrict the number of home shirts to one every two years was it?
....................
Was it illegal?
posted on 15/5/12
From an outside perspective if man city are spending on players it means other teams benefit financially.
Thereby football benefits.
posted on 15/5/12
Well it certainly wasn't anything to restrict the number of home shirts to one every two years was it?
....................
Was it illegal?
-----
No VC, unethical to which you already agreed.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by X (U4074)
posted 47 seconds ago
RedBlackandWhiteside - agreed, why can't parents just learn to say no? x
..........................
Probably because some parents are not very bright, and end up giving birth to the Redinthehead's of this world.
Now that really is unethical.
posted on 15/5/12
From an outside perspective if man city are spending on players it means other teams benefit financially.
***
Its not about transfer fees anymore (this money stays in football) its about personal terms now. ie Wages. (which doesnt).
posted on 15/5/12
"Because the premier league charter which all clubs signed up to stated they would only have a new home kit every two years. To not over encumber families financially to get kids a new shirt every season.
To go against that is unethical."
The inaugural premier league charter isn't a legally binding document. Can you name me any club who has abided by the 'every two years' guideline? You might, but you'll have to do some research and I bet there wont be many (don't bother with Liverpool, they've broken their word on the charter as well).
So are there degrees of ethics? Liverpool have had 13 home kits in the PL era, United 15. Tottenham have had 17.
If you're arguing that football puts a burden on families you won't get many arguments. If you're arguing that this is a phenomenon limited to Manchester United you're a bit thick.
posted on 15/5/12
The main problem I have with FFP is that it has suddenly turned the average fan into someone who thinks they have a grasp on economics in football and business in general. Threads like this pop up with increased regularity that show that absolutely not to be the case.
People also seem to be very blinkered to past history and the financial state and model that football has always followed, none of the things that people think are new actually are.
On the whole, I would suggest that people focus on on the pitch activities, unless they really understand what they are talking about.
posted on 15/5/12
When I was a kid I got a shirt (and kit) that went down to the middle of my thighs, and I got a new one when it stopped covering my stomach regardless of how many kits were released in the mean time x
Page 8 of 14
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13