Green and Gold till the club is Sold!

[TheMancRedDevil]

OK Joga.

What is your definition of a lie?

Here's one from here:-

Deifnition of Lie

"n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving."

You said: "I did, however, agree that it was misleading and inaccurate".

So, it was a false statement (inaccurate) and meant to deceive or give a wrong impression (misleading).

A fecking lie in most people's book but I'm sure you'll spend twenty pages refuting it.

The fact that you defend MUST so vehemently suggests that you're not exactly being totally impartial on the matter either.

I don't see you picking up many other people on every little word they say on here and giving them the coma-inducing 2,000 word essay treatment. Just me. An outspoken critic of MUST and Andersred. Why's that?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Hmmm? What's going on? I've just woken up from a coma after reading Joga's magnum opus

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Hmmm? What's going on? I've just woken up from a coma after reading Joga's magnum opus

You read it?

EDIT: What did it say?

 

[ciderman9000000]

You read it?

EDIT: What did it say?

No, i didn't really read it

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

No, i didn't really read it

I don't think you're taking this very seriously cider. You do realise you're in a court of law here, don't you?

 

[Sir A1ex]

The negative, I suppose, is that because they weren't maximising revenues, it made United a target for people like the Glazers.

If the PLC were squeezing every last drop of revenue out of the club, the Glazers wouldn't have been interested.

But according to you the Glazers have not been bad for the supporters either, so that's not a negative, surely?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

But according to you the Glazers have not been bad for the supporters either, so that's not a negative, surely?

Still nitpicking? Still putting words in people's mouths?

Thought of how you'd tackle the issue of ticket prices yet?

 

[Sir A1ex]

Still nitpicking? Still putting words in people's mouths?

For God's sake, you can't just try and avoid every argument by claiming it's nit-picking, or pretending you said something different.

You claimed that the Glazers are better than the PLC because the lazy PLC didn't maximise revenue.
I asked why that was bad for supporters, and you answered is that it lead to the Glazers taking over.

If you can't see the ridiculous circular logic in that argument, then I give up!

Or have I made it all up?

 

[ciderman9000000]

I don't think you're taking this very seriously cider

I think you're being disingenuous here. You're attacking a straw-dog argument and have provided no sources whatsoever as evidence of my not taking this seriously. I've informed you of my comatic experience upon reading Joga's excellent post and you've made the assumuion - note: assumption based on no provided evidence or sources, purely speculative - that i am not taking this seriously. I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, good sir!

You do realise you're in a court of law here, don't you?

Firstly, what is 'a court of law'? Nowhere have you shown me what this is supposed to be so how am i to know whether i am in 'a court of law' or not? Secondly, assuming that 'a court of law' is something that actually exists, a fact that as yet remains unproven, the onus is on you to provide evidence of our being 'in' court of law, and the whole time i've conversed with you you have provided none. Do you expect me to accept you on your word alone? Good sir, you once again stand accused by myself of intellectual dishonesty!

Is that your real face? You've not even provided any context with which a reader could rightly distinguish or ascertain whether or not that face belongs to you, and without being able to put the face into context - it being devoid of any proper categorization as a face at all, either your's or anyone else's - i can only say that it is in fact not your face, but rather that of a pixelated third party; and furthermore, nowhere have you shown that the eyes in the face are not rolling simply for medical reasons. You're just shacking up with the donkey and as such your logic fails and becomes the perfect example of a banana-argument. I accuse you of shaving goats!

 

[Sir A1ex]

You might want to go and find out what the word means.

Word to the wise... you keep saying things like that, presumably because you think it makes you sound clever and belittles the person you're talking to. It doesn't, it makes you sound like a small child.

You managed to miss the point spectacularly at least 3 times in the rest of that post... to recap very briefly:

I don't think stamps have intrinsic value as pieces of paper, but some are clearly very valuable. I really don't know what you were on about there to be honest, but neither do I care, as it's totally irrelevant to the point.

I also don't think that theatre is the same as football, obviously. But it's probably more comparable than stamp collecting.

I know you're not forced to buy a corporate box, and because of that I don't care what they cost. They can feel free to double the price if they want.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Which scenario is better?

£400 season tickets with no availability, or, £560 season tickets with excellent availability?

Some might say the former, some might say the latter - either way it's nowhere near as clear-cut as it's made out to be.

One thing that question doesn't take into account is the atmosphere and match-going experience.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

For God's sake, you can't just try and avoid every argument by claiming it's nit-picking, or pretending you said something different.

You claimed that the Glazers are better than the PLC because the lazy PLC didn't maximise revenue.
I asked why that was bad for supporters, and you answered is that it lead to the Glazers taking over.

If you can't see the ridiculous circular logic in that argument, then I give up!

Or have I made it all up?

When I said "I suppose", it was merely a nod in the direction of those who don't like the Glazers and their argument. Yet again, you are taking a couple of words from a post and making seem like I am completely contradicting myself.

My view is that, on balance, I prefer the Glazers to the PLC but for those who disagree with that then I SUPPOSE the bad thing about the PLC not maximising revenues was that it made United a more attractive target for buyers - especially ones intending to use an LBO method of purchase because revenues could easily be increased in order to cover the interest payments necessary with an LBO.

I can't say it any clearer than that.

Now... ticket prices...

 

[Sir A1ex]

My view is that, on balance, I prefer the Glazers to the PLC but for those who disagree with that then I SUPPOSE the bad thing about the PLC not maximising revenues was that it made United a more attractive target for buyers - especially ones intending to use an LBO method of purchase because revenues could easily be increased in order to cover the interest payments necessary with an LBO.

OK, if that's the case then you just haven't answered the original question at all. I'll rephrase very slightly to be clear:

For you, as a supporter, what was the draw-back of the PLC's lazy inability to maximise revenue?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I think you're being disingenuous here. You're attacking a straw-dog argument and have provided no sources whatsoever as evidence of my not taking this seriously. I've informed you of my comatic experience upon reading Joga's excellent post and you've made the assumuion - note: assumption based on no provided evidence or sources, purely speculative - that i am not taking this seriously. I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, good sir!



Firstly, what is 'a court of law'? Nowhere have you shown me what this is supposed to be so how am i to know whether i am in 'a court of law' or not? Secondly, assuming that 'a court of law' is something that actually exists, a fact that as yet remains unproven, the onus is on you to provide evidence of our being 'in' court of law, and the whole time i've conversed with you you have provided none. Do you expect me to accept you on your word alone? Good sir, you once again stand accused by myself of intellectual dishonesty!



Is that your real face? You've not even provided any context with which a reader could rightly distinguish or ascertain whether or not that face belongs to you, and without being able to put the face into context - it being devoid of any proper categorization as a face at all, either your's or anyone else's - i can only say that it is in fact not your face, but rather that of a pixelated third party; and furthermore, nowhere have you shown that the eyes in the face are not rolling simply for medical reasons. You're just shacking up with the donkey and as such your logic fails and becomes the perfect example of a banana-argument. I accuse you of shaving goats!

OK. I can't argue with that. Except for the last bit. That really IS my real face!

 

[Sir A1ex]

Now... ticket prices...

What did you want to know? What level I think ticket prices should be set at?

Finger in the air, I'd say about what they were ten years ago, but it's really not my job to decide. I believe in having redistributive taxation, and a free health service, but I don't feel that I'm in a position to set income tax rates or NHS budgets.

Who would decide?

The club, of course, operating wthin a framework where profit is not the overriding factor, and they are supported in this by the authorities.

Impossible?

Go tell a German supporter.

 

[ciderman9000000]

One thing that question doesn't take into account is the atmosphere and match-going experience.

Go on...

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

OK, if that's the case then you just haven't answered the original question at all. I'll rephrase very slightly to be clear:

For you, as a supporter, what was the draw-back of the PLC's lazy inability to maximise revenue?

Eh? I didn't actually give a monkeys about the financials prior to this year, much less during the period 1991-2005.

All I am saying is that if they had been maximising revenues (and yes, that includes ticket prices) then it would have made it less attractive to a buyer coming in because there would have been less scope for revenue increases.

It actually meant nothing to ME - it seems to have had a profound effect on you, though.

I don't know what you want me to say here, to be honest, so apologies if I'm not answering your question.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Go on...

Isn't it obvious cider? The cheaper the tickets, the better the atmosphere and the matchgoing experience.

Simple fecking logic that, mate.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Go on...

Well I think you know what I'm going to say, but it's pretty indisputable that the atmosphere has steadily declined for quite a few years now.
And while there are other factors involved, the experience (I'd say anecdotal, but it's way beyond that) of most match goers is that the single biggest reason for this is the gradual change in the make-up of the crowd from generations of locals who'd been going for years, to "day-trippers" who just don't know how to or aren't prepared to join in.
And the primary reason for that is the ticket price amd availability issue.

Isn't it obvious cider? The cheaper the tickets, the better the atmosphere and the matchgoing experience.

Simple fecking logic that, mate.

Pretty much yes - good guess!

Or more the other way round really - more expensive tickets have played a major part in the decline in atmosphere.

Unfortunately, reversing the process is less straight forward than just cutting ticket prices, for obvious reasons.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I just don't get it TMRD. What did this post mean?:

Yeah but you seem to think football clubs shouldn't be operated on a "for profit" basis. If there's no profit, where's the incentive to do the work?

Why do you think the PLC didn't go about these things with such gusto?

Because there was no bloody point, that's why. The stupid gits just sat there all day long slapping themselves on the back for having an enormous ST waiting list that generated feck all money for the club.

Surely you are implying that there is a benefit from the current set-up and the old one was problematic?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I just don't get it TMRD. What did this post mean?:



Surely you are implying that there is a benefit from the current set-up and the old one was problematic?

I think that post is pretty self-explanatory. What's your problem with it?

I have already said that I think the current ownership model is better than the PLC. What more do you want me to say?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

What did you want to know? What level I think ticket prices should be set at?

Finger in the air, I'd say about what they were ten years ago, but it's really not my job to decide. I believe in having redistributive taxation, and a free health service, but I don't feel that I'm in a position to set income tax rates or NHS budgets.

Who would decide?

The club, of course, operating wthin a framework where profit is not the overriding factor, and they are supported in this by the authorities.

Impossible?

Go tell a German supporter.

How much do tickets cost for a top German side? Bayern Munich, for example. Any idea?

 

[Sir A1ex]

I have already said that I think the current ownership model is better than the PLC. What more do you want me to say?

I want you to tell me what benefits it brings for the fans... why you think it is better.

 

[fredthered]

I think that post is pretty self-explanatory. What's your problem with it?

I have already said that I think the current ownership model is better than the PLC. What more do you want me to say?

That says an awful lot actually.

Even GCHQ admits the PLC was a far better busines model and way to run a club than what we have now.

Only you could think the opposite of every single Man United supporter I've ever known discuss this situation.

What I'd really love to know ( and please do humour me ) is why you believe what we are going through now is better than what we had under the PLC

 

[fredthered]

I want you to tell me what benefits it brings for the fans... why you think it is better.

PLEASE SIR

PLEASE SIR

Can I answer that question..

I know whats its brought to the fans..

Its brought absolutely feck ALL..

oops does that put me in detention ?

 

[fredthered]

How much do tickets cost for a top German side? Bayern Munich, for example. Any idea?

About half what it costs to get into OT.

Its been mentioned numerous times.

Do keep dear boy...

 

[Sir A1ex]

How much do tickets cost for a top German side? Bayern Munich, for example. Any idea?

From what I can see on their website they start at €15. Seems like Dortmund are the same, with 26,000 tickets at €15.

Add in safe standing areas, and beer allowed in the stands (even included in the ticket price, along with public transport to and from the match, in some instances), and it's fair to say I'm jealous.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I want you to tell me what benefits it brings for the fans... why you think it is better.

Off the top of my head?

• It is a far more dynamic method of ownership. Decisions can be made quickly. The signing of Bebe last week is a good example of how Fergie can seemingly sign a player quickly without having to jump through hoops of bureaucracy before being given the green light to sign a player. Had this not been the case, we may have lost out on him.
  
• Subjecting tickets to the laws of supply and demand is fairer than setting tickets at below market price because it allows people to get a ticket more easily than spending years on a waiting list.
  
• The current ownership has every incentive (and will therefore work harder) to make Manchester United the biggest and most successful it can be on and off the field because the owners will financially benefit from that success as the value of their asset grows. The knock-on effect for fans is that we also see our club become the biggest and most successful on and off the field.
  
• It would appear that Fergie is left completely unmolested on the footballing side of things. The Glazers deal with the business. The football bods deal with the football. Neither crosses the line and everyone is happy. Fans should be happy that Fergie is happy.
  
• Rifts within the boardroom prior to the Glazers' taking over were putting Fergie's position under jeopardy (the Coolmore thing). Had that continued, it could be speculated that Fergie might not have been here beyond 2005/06. Fans should be happy that he still is.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

About half what it costs to get into OT.

Its been mentioned numerous times.

Do keep dear boy...

Hey, I was asking a question.

Sorry if I missed the thread.

EDIT: Can you supply a link, please?

 

[GCHQ]

That says an awful lot actually.

Even GCHQ admits the PLC was a far better busines model and way to run a club than what we have now.

Only you could think the opposite of every single Man United supporter I've ever known discuss this situation.

What I'd really love to know ( and please do humour me ) is why you believe what we are going through now is better than what we had under the PLC

I certainly have not. I said that a comparitive cash outflow analysis of the two structures came out in the PLC's favour (not by anywhere near as much as people had previously been led to believe mind). HOWEVER, what cannot be disputed is that the private ownership model is far better for a football club like Manchester United. The decision making process is far quicker and only one family wields the power.

I don't know about anyone else but I think dictatorships are brilliant (on the whole).

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I certainly have not. I said that a comparitive cash outflow analysis of the two structures came out in the PLC's favour (not by anywhere near as much as people had previously been led to believe mind). HOWEVER, what cannot be disputed is that the private ownership model is far better for a football club like Manchester United. The decision making process is far quicker and only one family wields the power.

I don't know about anyone else but I think dictatorships are brilliant (on the whole).

If there's one thing I have learned on here, it is that people just LOVE putting words in others' mouths.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

From what I can see on their website they start at €15. Seems like Dortmund are the same, with 26,000 tickets at €15.

Add in safe standing areas, and beer allowed in the stands (even included in the ticket price, along with public transport to and from the match, in some instances), and it's fair to say I'm jealous.

OK. Fair enough. I was merely interested to know how we compare with our German counterparts in terms of ticket prices.

You will notice, however, that the article is a general attack on Premier League ticket prices across the board, not just Manchester United's.

It would appear that you would need to take your fight beyond the Glazers and appeal to every Premier League club.

Why should we put ourselves at a disadvantage by charging less than our rivals?

I will have to take a closer look at the German model, it does look like an interesting subject.

EDIT: I would also add that the article makes mention of the players wage bill being much less in Germany than in England. This ties in with what I have said all along. Player wages have been a driving factor in ticket prices.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I don't know about anyone else but I think dictatorships are brilliant (on the whole).

I don't expect this will go down too well (on the whole)

 

[peterstorey]

I don't expect this will go down too well (on the whole)

I don't think it's what Aidan meant when he suggested looking at the German model.

 

[GCHQ]

I don't think it's what Aidan meant when he suggested looking at the German model.

 

[ciderman9000000]

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

What did you want to know? What level I think ticket prices should be set at?

Finger in the air, I'd say about what they were ten years ago, but it's really not my job to decide.

Finger in the air? Brilliant. Can we have you in charge of the club please? I like your style.

About what they were ten years ago? Is that a definitive rule? I.e. we should always charge what they were ten years ago (along with the attendant above inflation rises when we get to 2015-2019) or just always at 2000 levels even when we're in the year 2050?

It might not be your job to decide but you seem to have made it your job to decide that they're currently too high.

You've given this absolutely no thought whatsoever have you? You've simply decided that the current method is wrong but have nothing of substance to offer as an alternative.

You're not Dunkin Donut are you?

 

[ciderman9000000]

Actually, I think the correct abusive term would be, 'Duncan Dildo'.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I think what A1Dan is suggesting, TMRD, is that, because ten years ago there was a fecking ten year waiting list for tickets, by the time you get to the top of that list you should only reasonably be expected to pay whatever price tickets were when you joined.

 

[B Cantona]

That Joga post was a little too 'Feeding Seagulls' for my liking...

I wonder if it's co-incidence that whenever I open one of these threads, Cider is acting the arse. But then I read a few pages back and no, indeed, he is constantly the arse