• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Daniel Levy - Chairman

Raziel said:
I
I would say, with Levy, I'm quite optimistic, our revenue will likely double, while that still may not make us one of the big players, it is a significant change in our spending ability.
Click to expand...

I think the NFL and the additional revenue from here will help bridge some of the gap.

We will be alot more punchy once we get into the new Stadium
 
Raziel said:
It's Arsenal & Pool the stadium will help us compete with, United (their sheer size and fan base), City & Chelsea (money doping) are still in a different league.

I would say, with Levy, I'm quite optimistic, our revenue will likely double, while that still may not make us one of the big players, it is a significant change in our spending ability which I think could be applied to our biggest risk area (wages) for long term success.
Click to expand...

Would agree with this, like it or not Man Utd are ( and probably always will) the biggest club in the Prem. their fame (world wide) took of after the Munich crash and it has grown ever since.
 
SteveAWOL said:
Looks like Spurs made almost 20% profit in most recent published accounts, £57m on £210m

DShx7eLW4AAGanG.jpg



DShyARpWkAEpBuS.jpg
Click to expand...

Hang on here, I'm not having this. So City make £473m of which only £52m comes from the stadium. So that's £421m from tv and sponsorship/commercial sales. That doesn't add up at all, supposedly their deal with Etihad is only for £40m a year so where is all this extra cash coming from?

On the Man Utd sponsors how does a sponsor get any value from something like a tractor partner, I never see anything about it in the media etc so where is it shown off in a way that benefits the sponsor? I would think all those types of deals would die off eventually.
 
P.D. said:
On the Man Utd sponsors how does a sponsor get any value from something like a tractor partner, I never see anything about it in the media etc so where is it shown off in a way that benefits the sponsor? I would think all those types of deals would die off eventually.
Click to expand...

I think much of that sort of thing is in being able to use their Utd connection in their own advertising etc.

"Old MacDonalds Tractors, proud sponsors of...." type thing

Which, unless you are into tractors, isnt the sort of thing you would see is it?
 
P.D. said:
Hang on here, I'm not having this. So City make £473m of which only £52m comes from the stadium. So that's £421m from tv and sponsorship/commercial sales. That doesn't add up at all, supposedly their deal with Etihad is only for £40m a year so where is all this extra cash coming from?
Click to expand...
It sounds a little dodgy but you are forgetting the very exclusive Eithad Stadium executive bathroom membership at €20mil a year plus €5m per excretion.
 
He looks a little tired and longer in the tooth on sky.

Must be stressful to deliver emphatically both on and off the pitch
 
parklane1 said:
Would agree with this, like it or not Man Utd are ( and probably always will) the biggest club in the Prem. their fame (world wide) took of after the Munich crash and it has grown ever since.
Click to expand...

I agree as a kid in the 50's all the kids I knew followed Spurs, Woolwich and Celtic (Catholics). United picked up a lot of sympathy following the Munich tragedy. Never knew anyone who supported Liverpool unlike the 40/50 year olds you see now days.
 
FatBloke said:
I do wonder about that. This is based on absolutely bugger all knowledge, but aren't the kids in Singapore now more likely to choose Emirates Marketing Project or Chelsea shirts than Yanited? There are only so many years without major success, with dire football, that can be glossed over. I'd imagine that Emirates Marketing Project are now perceived firmly as the glamour team. I'd also imagine/hope that our good football and Kane/Alli axis puts us in good stead with the FIFA generation -- would the geeky more alternative kids look to Spurs?

At the moment, yes, ManU have the biggest brand. They've worked bloody hard for it in Asia and the Middle East, and two decades of solid success in the global media era has them entrenched. But if I was the biggest tractor manufacturer in Kazakhstan, I'd be bidding for Emirates Marketing Project first and offering ManU a bit less.

Things change quickly these days. Hopefully we'll start winning some of the global sponsorship deals that we wouldn't even be considered for a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Still very much Utd. Chelsea are beginning to build a name worldwide, but it's a slow process.

City will still be way down the list - probably somewhere near Spurs.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I agree as a kid in the 50's all the kids I knew followed Spurs, Woolwich and Celtic (Catholics). United picked up a lot of sympathy following the Munich tragedy. Never knew anyone who supported Liverpool unlike the 40/50 year olds you see now days.
Click to expand...

Very true, it took Shankly to make them a household name and that never happened till the mid 60s.
 
parklane1 said:
Very true, it took Shankly to make them a household name and that never happened till the mid 60s.
Click to expand...
That certainly set them on their way but it was their total dominance in England during the 70s and 80s together with their four European Cups pre-Heysel that suckered mostly younger gloryhunters from all over into jumping onto the bandwagon in big numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back