The mancityfans.net football forum

Just posted this in the "City buying the league, thats rich" sticky, but thought it was probably worth its own thread.

Maybe providing a bit more ammo, if any is required, for Sunday and beyond.

From th'independent blogs....


Manchester United are sore losers barking up the wrong tree

"And so it begins again. Another cycle within a cycle. The next wave of people crying foul over Manchester City’s spending as the club sits on the brink of its first league title since 1968. At first, it was Everton fans screaming longest and loudest. Then it was Arsenal fans. Now it’s the turn of those who follow Manchester United. Can anyone detect a pattern?

Naturally, the argument is that City have “bought the title” but can anybody name a team that hasn’t needed a period of ‘accelerated expenditure’ (in the language of Garry Cook) to land the ultimate prize since the Premier League started in 1992?

Even Arsenal achieved their initial success on the back of a net spend of around £25m between 1994 and 1997, during which time they broke the British transfer record for the first time since 1971 with the signing of Dennis Bergkamp. Three years appears to be the necessary period of sustained transfer investment before a title can be expected, the only thing that ever changes is the scale of the money involved.

United fans, though, have cultivated a cunning take on the situation with talk of ‘organic spending’. And now it seems many of those who have spent the last 20 years rebelling against the corporate might of their club by refusing to buy replica shirts are as proud as punch about the club’s business record because it gives them some vague sense of moral high ground.

What they conveniently prefer to overlook is that United underwent a period a heavy transfer investment themselves between 1988 and 1991, spending six times the British record transfer fee on new recruits at a time when Old Trafford crowds (the primary source of revenue in those days) had dipped below 30,000. Nobody ever really explained where that money came from.

But that doesn’t matter now. As we all know, football began in 1992 and some are going to great lengths to explain that what City have done is somehow different, that competitive balance is being compromised in a way that it never has before, that Uefa’s Financial Fair Play initiative represents a sure sign that things have gone too far.

Sadly, those assuming the role of political activist on behalf of United and other global brands have got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Their cause is akin to Swampy campaigning against a new burger chain on behalf of McDonalds.

I’ve no doubt that some good will come from FFP – it goes without saying that all football clubs should be de-incentivised from gambling on their very survival – but like the Premier League’s new parachute payment structure, which mockingly convinced hard-up Football League clubs that less is more, it is Uefa who will benefit most by further safeguarding the big names that matter to their competitions.

The aim is to ensure that they retain a firm grip on their notion of competitive balance through the distribution of television money, shutting the door that currently leaves them at the mercy of further Black Swan investors like Sheikhs Mansour and Abdullah Al Thani (owner of Malaga). In the meantime, the real hardships, that have been caused by the authorities, continue to be suffered the further down the food chain you go.

To better understand how football has changed over the past couple of decades, one might refer to the most talked-about chapter in the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics in which authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner highlighted the startling similarity between a Chicago drugs gang and the standard capitalist enterprise.

So skewed is the distribution of television money in favour of those towards the top of the pyramid, the incentives for anyone to get to the next level are becoming more and more tantalising yet ever more elusive. Needless to say, the foot soldiers on the streets are killing themselves in their attempts to kill each other.

‘The beautiful game’ that Stuart Hall refers to when recalling a youth spent watching Peter Doherty playing for City at Maine Road in the 1950s is now much closer to ‘the game’ as its referred to in The Wire. The last ten years have been a bloodbath. Administration is part and parcel, like gunshots in the Baltimore projects, and all to ensure that the Avon Barksdales of this world stay firmly in control.

If, as expected, City clinch the title on Sunday, it will no doubt be portrayed as a significant power shift in Premier League history. But as injustices go, it doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface."

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/ ... rong-tree/

Can somebody clarify this 30,000 attendance issue for me - I thought that was related to the redevelopment of the ground to all seater rather than a dip in attendances.

well in Yffi_88. deffo worth it's own thread.

As already said, the wheels are turning and the squeaking bandwagoners seem busy to squirt off the crumbling base.
the Independent has been my favourite English paper for ages, but then I went increasingly and hugely annoyed at their cheap way they used to ride the anty-City's Money Bag hype.
NOW, they appear to be amongst firsts to start the rush to jump on the WINNERS wagon...

All in all, imho, the major point of those mediatic U-turns is that they are definitely the most solid proof of how STEADY the BlueMoon raise is deemed (and perceived) to be.

Im_Spartacus wrote:Can somebody clarify this 30,000 attendance issue for me - I thought that was related to the redevelopment of the ground to all seater rather than a dip in attendances.

This is one thing i was a bit dubious about.

There is a pretty lengthy argument/debate going on if you check out the comments on a variety of subjects - the attendance issue being one.

Im_Spartacus wrote:Can somebody clarify this 30,000 attendance issue for me - I thought that was related to the redevelopment of the ground to all seater rather than a dip in attendances.

pretty sure their average attendance was way more than 30k... think the point the guy is trying to make is that the swamp wasn't always the sell out for pretty much every game like it is now... they had someb really poor attendances for cup matches in particular..... bit like us really...

Most press now more amenable to us except the daily mirror a dedicated enemy who today were spreading lies about ya ya returning to Barcelona. The journo must have his nose right up SAF's bum, just trying to take the gloss off what I hope will be a great day on Sunday. What a CUNT.

The average attendance was less because of redevelopment but was above 30,000 BUT they didn't sell out for the derby v City (after the 5-1) because they were playing like shit & the demand wasn't there from gloryhunters. The usual rags were scared it was going to happen again. (As it turned out, in typical rags fashion, the oppo battered them, missed 5 absolute sitters & ended up with a 1-1 draw).

What is certain though, is that their achievable attendances at the time were comparable to ours now, they didn't always sell out & if you'd had pay at the gate in a 100,000 seater Utd stadium, they would have got, on average, between 40 to 55,000 people in it depending on the game. In spite of all the Munich bollocks, the true interest in Utd worldwide was not even on the map compared to what it is now, mainly Brits, Scandinavians & Irish.

The biggest rise in Utd crowds after the post Munich/European Cup period, was when they invented large scale football hooliganism & school bullies & other assorted thugs and cowards from from Yorkshire, London etc would travel the length of the country to join in.

That was a perfect example of "LAZY JOURNALISM" and its author should be ashamed. A perfect example of what we have had to put up with for years. The general gist of what he was trying to say was right but the evidence he used to back it up just isn't true.

How hard would it have been to click a mouse and find the actual level of rags attendances? How difficult for him to check that Stuart Hall's Beautiful game (term coined by Pele), would have had great difficulty watching Peter (the Great) Doherty in the 1950s. His last season for us was around 1945 and the previous 5-6 seasons had only been war time comps.

I'm all fer slagging the rags off but If yer gonna do it, at least get yer facts right and make yer argument stick.

Im_Spartacus wrote:Can somebody clarify this 30,000 attendance issue for me - I thought that was related to the redevelopment of the ground to all seater rather than a dip in attendances.

May have been. However, around the time Manchester was considering the Olympics and proposing a new 100,000 seated stadium where the Trafford Centre now stands, they wanted City and the rags to move into the stadium. At the time, Maine Rd held about 42000 and the swamp about 45000, both with standing sections. I remember a conversation with my rag uncle who was dead against the idea of moving, as he said there'd be no atmosphere as the ground would be half empty for most games. That was pre-premier league and the rags couldn't fill 45,000 seats for most games. For City games, we used to turn up an hour before kick off and buy a ticket. With violence, the Bradford fire, Hillsborough etc, football was not the thing that the upwardly mobile wanted to be associated with.

The 30,000 might be a bit low, but I suspect average attendances were in the high 30s, despite them being a relatively successful side in cups.

john68 wrote:That was a perfect example of "LAZY JOURNALISM" and its author should be ashamed. A perfect example of what we have had to put up with for years. The general gist of what he was trying to say was right but the evidence he used to back it up just isn't true.

How hard would it have been to click a mouse and find the actual level of rags attendances? How difficult for him to check that Stuart Hall's Beautiful game (term coined by Pele), would have had great difficulty watching Peter (the Great) Doherty in the 1950s. His last season for us was around 1945 and the previous 5-6 seasons had only been war time comps.

I'm all fer slagging the rags off but If yer gonna do it, at least get yer facts right and make yer argument stick.

Is anyone a member of the indy online to post John's reply.....sounds like a shambles of an article written by a biased blue, but most of us would have little choice but to believe it as we know no better.

Not hard to check the attendances figures at all.

In 1989 when Frgsn came so close to being sacked, they had less than 30k in the league once. At home verses Wimbledon penultimate home game of the season.

To be fair in the article it does not say average attendances but to imply that sub 30k was in any way representative is deceptive at best!

Probably why its on the blog pages and not the 'real thing'.

The attendace numbers for the swamp were always inclucive of the thousands of free tickets given to every catholic church and school in the surrounding areas durning the 60s through to the 90s every week, and I do mean thousands because it covered what is now greater Manchester so included Bolton, Bury,Wigan ect,

At the same time the "Maine rd mafia" were fiddling the numbers big time, because not only were the gatemen raking it in, but the clubs higher ups were at it as well, I went to games where you could not move it was that packed, only to pick up the paper or hear the announcer state the attendance around the 32000 mark, that when the Kippax held 26000 on its own ( The stretford end only held 12500 and that included 1500 seats at the back, the Kop was a lot closer at 22000)

IT'S ANORAK TIME!!

Rags attendances 80's 90's.

Year........Tot Att......Highest.....Lowest.....Avgatt.......Avg empty spaces compared to capacity
80-81......946,491.....57,049......37,954.....45,071......11,000 +
81-82......935,983.....57,830......34,499.....44,570......13,000 +
82-83......872,602.....57,397......30,227.....41,552......15,000 +
83-84......893,211.....56,121......33,616.....42,533......13,000 +
84-85......900,504.....56,638......31,291.....42,881......13,000 +
85-86......972,757.....54,575......32,331.....46,321.......8,000 +
86-87......853,137.....54,103......31,686.....40,625......13,000 +.... Finish 11th (Ferguson takes over Nov)
87-88......784,331.....48,087......28,040.....39,216.......8,000 +... Signings inc Bruce, Anderson, McClair, Leighton
88-89......693,257.....46,377......23,368.....36,847.......9,000 +... Signings inc Hughes
89-90......742,475.....47,245......29,281.....39,077.......8,000 +... Signings inc Webb, Phelan, Ince, Pallister, Wallace
90-91......821,589.....47,485......32,776.....43,242.......4,000 +
91-92......944,678.....47,576......38,554.....44,985.......3,000 +
92-93*****.747,033.....45,428......29,736.....35,573..........na .... Premier League Title 1st season *** ground capacity reduced
93-94......929,133.....44,751......41,829.....44,244.........600 +.. Premier League Title
94-95......917,318.....43,868......43,130.....43,682.........100 +
95-96*****.791,940.....53,926......31,966.....41,681.........na...... Premier League Title ***ground capacity reduced
96-97....1,046,547.....55,314......54,178.....55,081.........200+... Premier League Title
97-98....1,048,125.....55,306......55,008.....55,164.........100+
98-99....1,048,580.....55,316......55,052.....55,188.........100+... Premier League Title

As you can see, The Premier League built Manchester Utd & we are much closer to capacity now than they were when it started.

The owner's plans to eclipse them & become self sufficient over time are realistic.

You will also note the huge influx of big money signings just in time for the start of the Prem.

They knew about it before it happened & have milked the fucker, pushing up wages & transfer fees so others (such as us) couldn't compete. The same happened with the Champion's Lg & that is why Platini is fighting so hard to keep the same clubs in it.

I well remember attendances in the 80's at the swamp of just over 30,000 for matches against the likes of Norwich, Notts Co and Luton. I'm pretty sure I'll have a proggy from the filth pit for a 'Derby' game that will confirm this.
The 'Derby' in Feb' '90 (the one after the 5-1) drew a crowd of just over 40,000. The scoreboard paddock was the only part of the ground that was full (away section). When I tell rags about it now, that you could see swathes of empty terracing on the Stretford End they refuse to believe it.

Here we go
From Prog 3/2/90 (which has a picture of Spunky on the front and my dog has just shown good taste by trying to rip up)
"Barclays League att...Highest 47245 (Arsenal) Lowest 33514 (Crystal Palace) Average 39029."

From Prog 4/5/91
This shows a highest crowd of 47485 against Villa in December.
But also gates of 32776 v Derby,
36660 v Wimbledon
35065 v QPR
22295 v Halifax in the League Cup
and 29405 v Wrexham in the ECWC.

From prog 6/12/92
I think the Swamp might have had a reduced capacity of around 33000 this season.
But even then A "European Glory Night" v Torpedo Moscow only drew 19998 and a cup visit from Brighton 25405.

This 'sold out forever' thing really is a myth.
Take it with a pinch of salt, because some of us remember the truth.
THEY REALLY ARE GLORY HUNTERS!

Ted Hughes wrote:IT'S ANORAK TIME!!

Rags attendances 80's 90's.

Year........Tot Att......Highest.....Lowest.....Avgatt.......Avg empty spaces compared to capacity
80-81......946,491.....57,049......37,954.....45,071......11,000 +
81-82......935,983.....57,830......34,499.....44,570......13,000 +
82-83......872,602.....57,397......30,227.....41,552......15,000 +
83-84......893,211.....56,121......33,616.....42,533......13,000 +
84-85......900,504.....56,638......31,291.....42,881......13,000 +
85-86......972,757.....54,575......32,331.....46,321.......8,000 +
86-87......853,137.....54,103......31,686.....40,625......13,000 +.... Finish 11th (Ferguson takes over Nov)
87-88......784,331.....48,087......28,040.....39,216.......8,000 +... Signings inc Bruce, Anderson, McClair, Leighton
88-89......693,257.....46,377......23,368.....36,847.......9,000 +... Signings inc Hughes
89-90......742,475.....47,245......29,281.....39,077.......8,000 +... Signings inc Webb, Phelan, Ince, Pallister, Wallace
90-91......821,589.....47,485......32,776.....43,242.......4,000 +
91-92......944,678.....47,576......38,554.....44,985.......3,000 +
92-93*****.747,033.....45,428......29,736.....35,573..........na .... Premier League Title 1st season *** ground capacity reduced
93-94......929,133.....44,751......41,829.....44,244.........600 +.. Premier League Title
94-95......917,318.....43,868......43,130.....43,682.........100 +
95-96*****.791,940.....53,926......31,966.....41,681.........na...... Premier League Title ***ground capacity reduced
96-97....1,046,547.....55,314......54,178.....55,081.........200+... Premier League Title
97-98....1,048,125.....55,306......55,008.....55,164.........100+
98-99....1,048,580.....55,316......55,052.....55,188.........100+... Premier League Title

As you can see, The Premier League built Manchester Utd & we are much closer to capacity now than they were when it started.

The owner's plans to eclipse them & become self sufficient over time are realistic.

You will also note the huge influx of big money signings just in time for the start of the Prem.

They knew about it before it happened & have milked the fucker, pushing up wages & transfer fees so others (such as us) couldn't compete. The same happened with the Champion's Lg & that is why Platini is fighting so hard to keep the same clubs in it.

Good one Ted. I have used the 90-91 figures before, but I have now saved that for future ammunition in various places.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:I well remember attendances in the 80's at the swamp of just over 30,000 for matches against the likes of Norwich, Notts Co and Luton. I'm pretty sure I'll have a proggy from the filth pit for a 'Derby' game that will confirm this.
The 'Derby' in Feb' '90 (the one after the 5-1) drew a crowd of just over 40,000. The scoreboard paddock was the only part of the ground that was full (away section). When I tell rags about it now, that you could see swathes of empty terracing on the Stretford End they refuse to believe it.

I'd like to see the explaination of the 23, 368 which turned out for one game in 88-89 & the average of 36,847 (& that was in Ferguson's 3rd season btw after big investment in players to add to the likes of Brian Robson who were already there).

Mancini is in his 3rd season if I'm not mistaken. What are the chances of us getting 23,000 for a league game or our average crowd dropping to 36,000?

They were dropping into mediocrity, crowds were dwindling & only huge spending/investment, becoming a PLC & the extra cash generated from Sky, turned it around for them. Then in later years, the huge funds & huge publicty generated by constantly winning the Prem and then the closed shop, moneygoround of the Champions League changed them from a big English club (not as big as Liverpool btw) to a worldwide franchise.

We are following their blueprint for success but we are doing it faster, with better owners, better players, better management, better marketing people, better academy, better everything & we look better, smell better and are nicer. So they want to change the rules to stop us.

They can just fuck off.