2014/15 UEFA Champions League Thread

This referee is card happy

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The difference is that Pellegrini will probably be fired for this if he doesn't win the League.  Wenger has no pressure on him because Arsenal don't care about failing in the Champions League and they don't care about not winning the league for ten years either.

He'll get fired because they've spent the equivalent GDP of a small country on this club. Believe me the old miserly fucks on the Arsenal board would have sacked Wenger a long time ago if it wasn't for him A) not spending any of their money and B) routinely making them profit.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The difference is that Pellegrini will probably be fired for this if he doesn't win the League.  Wenger has no pressure on him because Arsenal don't care about failing in the Champions League and they don't care about not winning the league for ten years either.

He'll get fired because they've spent the equivalent GDP of a small country on this club. Believe me the old miserly fucks on the Arsenal board would have sacked Wenger a long time ago if it wasn't for him A) not spending any of their money and B) routinely making them profit.

Correct, Manchester City are about sporting success, Arsenal are about generating profit. I'd rather see clubs go into the Champions League to win it than see them use it for profit like Liverpool and Arsenal do.

Suarez misses a one-on-one opportunity.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
He'll get fired because they've spent the equivalent GDP of a small country on this club. Believe me the old miserly fucks on the Arsenal board would have sacked Wenger a long time ago if it wasn't for him A) not spending any of their money and B) routinely making them profit.

Correct, Manchester City are about sporting success, Arsenal are about generating profit.  I'd rather see clubs go into the Champions League to win it than see them use it for profit like Liverpool and Arsenal do.

I guess that rules out Manchester United as well, not that you'd qualify for it anyway.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
He'll get fired because they've spent the equivalent GDP of a small country on this club. Believe me the old miserly fucks on the Arsenal board would have sacked Wenger a long time ago if it wasn't for him A) not spending any of their money and B) routinely making them profit.

Correct, Manchester City are about sporting success, Arsenal are about generating profit.  I'd rather see clubs go into the Champions League to win it than see them use it for profit like Liverpool and Arsenal do.

Profit and sporting success are not mutually exclusive.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Correct, Manchester City are about sporting success, Arsenal are about generating profit.  I'd rather see clubs go into the Champions League to win it than see them use it for profit like Liverpool and Arsenal do.

I guess that rules out Manchester United as well, not that you'd qualify for it anyway.

Er...unlike Manchester City and Arsenal we have actually won the Champions League, twice. At least since 2011 for us football comes first and the profit is a nice byproduct. How else could you explain spending £24m on a 29 year old with one year left on his contract? Or £15-20m on Ashley Young and £130k a week wages when he had one year left on his? How do you explain buying Fellaini for £28m? Do you think that will eventually become profitable for us? What about Mata? You're talking shit.

Toure sent off for violent conduct.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Ra's al Ghul wrote:

What's the point of anyone that isn't Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern, Chelsea and Atletico entering the Champions League? We're there to make up the numbers, just like the 31 other teams. The day we don't deserve to enter the Champions League is the day someone finishes ahead of us in the league or knocks us out in the playoffs.

Teams like Juventus, United, Inter, PSG, Manchester City, Liverpool pre-Rodgers, Dortmund, etc. actually try to win the competition instead of having their main priority be qualification for the next season so they have more money to make their 4th place slot more secure.  Even teams like Spurs when they're in actually enjoy their time in the competition and take some pride in their achievements instead of just whining about correct refereeing decisions when they get knocked out.

I guess they need to try harder.

Chelsea and City really showed their CL winning ambition tonight.

Can't wait for the influx of articles this week about the decline of the Premier League. As if it hasn't been blatantly evident for the last three years.

United's players have now scored more goals in the Champions League this season than Liverpool.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:

I guess that rules out Manchester United as well, not that you'd qualify for it anyway.

Er...unlike Manchester City and Arsenal we have actually won the Champions League, twice.  At least since 2011 for us football comes first and the profit is a nice byproduct.  How else could you explain spending £24m on a 29 year old with one year left on his contract?  Or £15-20m on Ashley Young and £130k a week wages when he had one year left on his?  How do you explain buying Fellaini for £28m?  Do you think that will eventually become profitable for us?    What about Mata?  You're talking shit.

Why are you bringing up City with Arsenal? And CLs that you won 15 and 6 years ago have zero relevance in todays game. You sound like the Liverpool fans you so routinely ridicule.  

You're acting like Young was shit when you signed him. He was a good player and £15million was cheap for him. And again, RvP was the best player in the league at the time and maybe even the best striker in world football, he single handedly won you the PL the following season, you got him at a cheap price considering subsequent sales.

That £28million was all you spent all summer and it was a last minute panic buy despite you crying out for a major overhaul the Glazers refused to spend a penny. And given the income you generate you should be the top spenders season after season, or at least clear off something of that debt, but instead your owners line their pockets.

That fact you only sacked Moyes after a massive fall in share prices despite him deserving to be sacked months before speaks volumes of the profit culture at United.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Er...unlike Manchester City and Arsenal we have actually won the Champions League, twice.  At least since 2011 for us football comes first and the profit is a nice byproduct.  How else could you explain spending £24m on a 29 year old with one year left on his contract?  Or £15-20m on Ashley Young and £130k a week wages when he had one year left on his?  How do you explain buying Fellaini for £28m?  Do you think that will eventually become profitable for us?    What about Mata?  You're talking shit.

Why are you bringing up City with Arsenal? And CLs that you won 15 and 6 years ago have zero relevance in todays game. You sound like the Liverpool fans you so routinely ridicule.  

That £28million was all you spent all summer and it was a last minute panic buy despite you crying out for a major overhaul the Glazers refused to spend a penny. And given the income you generate you should be the top spenders season after season, or at least clear off something of that debt, but instead your owners line their pockets.

That fact you only sacked Moyes after a massive fall in share prices despite him deserving to be sacked months before speaks volumes of the profit culture at United.

We spent £28m on Fellaini, but we bid an above world record amount for Gareth Bale and that's confirmed.  This year we have shattered the British transfer record and spent £20m on a completely unnecessary luxury signing.  The debt is being cleared all the time.

The value of the club plummeted by £220m by January and he survived for footballing reasons (ie. that senile egomaniac continuing to back him).  It was only when the Heavenly Seventy made his position untenable with the plane banner that the decision was made to get rid.

How does the word of Uncle Flo confirm anything?

It's also confirmed by reputable sources in independent broadsheet newspapers and Red Issue's sources within Manchester United. We also bid for Cristiano Ronaldo and couldn't get him.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

We spent £28m on Fellaini, but we bid an above world record amount for Gareth Bale and that's confirmed.  This year we have shattered the British transfer record and spent £20m on a completely unnecessary luxury signing.  The debt is being cleared all the time.

The value of the club plummeted by £220m by January and he survived for footballing reasons (ie. that senile egomaniac continuing to back him).  It was only when the Heavenly Seventy made his position untenable with the plane banner that the decision was made to get rid.

Of course Perez is going to say that It's in his best interested to make it look like they fended off competition for Bale and hence why they paid so much. Again, you ridiculed Liverpool fans about a similar bullshit story in regards to Barca inflating Suarez's transfer yet here you are doing it yourself.

You spent money this year because it was a complete necessity. If you hadn't you'd have had a mass mutiny on your hands and share prices would have only gone down further. Sponsors would have started to question you and I'm sure you wouldn't have gotten as lucrative deals as you ended up getting. It was a case of spending money to make money.

The days after you sacked Moyes your share prices rose to their highest in 11 months. United would have known that would happen hence why they did it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/david-moyes-sacked-manchester-uniteds-3442826

So bad deals = ambition.

Apparently so.

El_indian wrote:So bad deals = ambition.

I guess Dalglish was just too ambitious for the modern game.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

We spent £28m on Fellaini, but we bid an above world record amount for Gareth Bale and that's confirmed.  This year we have shattered the British transfer record and spent £20m on a completely unnecessary luxury signing.  The debt is being cleared all the time.

The value of the club plummeted by £220m by January and he survived for footballing reasons (ie. that senile egomaniac continuing to back him).  It was only when the Heavenly Seventy made his position untenable with the plane banner that the decision was made to get rid.

Of course Perez is going to say that It's in his best interested to make it look like they fended off competition for Bale and hence why they paid so much. Again, you ridiculed Liverpool fans about a similar bullshit story in regards to Barca inflating Suarez's transfer yet here you are doing it yourself.

You spent money this year because it was a complete necessity. If you hadn't you'd have had a mass mutiny on your hands and share prices would have only gone down further. Sponsors would have started to question you and I'm sure you wouldn't have gotten as lucrative deals as you ended up getting. It was a case of spending money to make money.

The days after you sacked Moyes your share prices rose to their highest in 11 months. United would have known that would happen hence why they did it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/david-moyes-sacked-manchester-uniteds-3442826

Why wouldn't United deny it if it wasn't true?  It makes us look bad to miss out on players and it was a fucking stupid fee anyway.  There is a big difference between leaking inflated fees to the press through sources and coming out publicly and stating it.

The sponsors were already committed before we spent much more than what we did on Herrera.  There was absolutely no need to sign players like Di Maria and Falcao to please sponsors.

The only reason to chase a short term rise in share price is if the Glazers were about to unload a few.  It wasn't a factor.

El_indian wrote:So bad deals = ambition.

No, but obviously unprofitable deals show you're not all about profit.  You don't see Liverpool and Arsenal spending huge amounts on players approaching 30 because they favour resale value.

van Persie was the highest-selling shirt seller in the entire league, though.   It's not like it was a terrible deal from a business perspective-he was cheap for a world class (at the time, at least) striker and he's quite marketable.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2014-15/aug/van-persie-remains-top-selling-shirt-in-barclays-premier-league.html

Other clubs would love to be able to make 20m luxury signings, but they don't have as much money as Manchester United.  They have to get value for money.  They just don't do so as often as they should.

Glen Miller wrote:van Persie was the highest-selling shirt seller in the entire league, though.   It's not like it was a terrible deal from a business perspective-he was cheap for a world class (at the time, at least) striker and he's quite marketable.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2014-15/aug/van-persie-remains-top-selling-shirt-in-barclays-premier-league.html

Other clubs would love to be able to make 20m luxury signings, but they don't have as much money as Manchester United.  They have to get value for money.  They just don't do so as often as they should.

We didn't get any money for that, Nike did, and it wasn't cheap because we have to pay him over £10m a year into his 30s plus £24m when we could have got him for free a year later. It was horrendous business. The impact of new signings on shirt sales is massively exaggerated anyway, it's not like if there are 10m RVP shirts sold United shirt sales increase by 10m or Arsenal's decrease by 10m, it just means that people buy shirts they would have bought anyway only with a different name on the back.

Glen Miller wrote:

El_indian wrote:So bad deals = ambition.

I guess Dalglish was just too ambitious for the modern game.

He tried to convert Moneyball but he was too uneducated, he missed out two critical points identified by Kuper and Szymanski in Soccernomics - certain nationalities are massively overpriced as are players with unusual haircuts like Andy Carroll. Just a shame Ferguson followed his lead by spunking £16m+ on farmer Jones.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Glen Miller wrote:van Persie was the highest-selling shirt seller in the entire league, though.   It's not like it was a terrible deal from a business perspective-he was cheap for a world class (at the time, at least) striker and he's quite marketable.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2014-15/aug/van-persie-remains-top-selling-shirt-in-barclays-premier-league.html

Other clubs would love to be able to make 20m luxury signings, but they don't have as much money as Manchester United.  They have to get value for money.  They just don't do so as often as they should.

We didn't get any money for that, Nike did, and it wasn't cheap because we have to pay him over £10m a year into his 30s plus £24m when we could have got him for free a year later.  It was horrendous business.  The impact of new signings on shirt sales is massively exaggerated anyway, it's not like if there are 10m RVP shirts sold United shirt sales increase by 10m or Arsenal's decrease by 10m, it just means that people buy shirts they would have bought anyway only with a different name on the back.

As Keyser said, sponsorships are granted based on the quality of the brand of the football club.  It's not as if van Persie's influence was only felt on the football pitch.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Why wouldn't United deny it if it wasn't true?  It makes us look bad to miss out on players and it was a fucking stupid fee anyway.  There is a big difference between leaking inflated fees to the press through sources and coming out publicly and stating it.

The sponsors were already committed before we spent much more than what we did on Herrera.  There was absolutely no need to sign players like Di Maria and Falcao to please sponsors.

The only reason to chase a short term rise in share price is if the Glazers were about to unload a few.  It wasn't a factor.

Is that a serious question? 99% of the time clubs don't respond to speculation, if they did they'd just be wasting entire press conferences commenting on rumour after rumour. Also, as far as I'm aware the question was never asked to directly to any United representativite for them to be even given the chance to deny it. Are United ment to hold a press conference or release a statement solely to deny a rumour?

Perez is a known bullshitter so it's no different at all to leaking stuff to the press, it's different approaches but it's the same shit.

Don't be naive, the sponsors would have required some guarantees from United in regards to their transfer activity before agreeing the deal. Whether the deals came before or after the official announcement transfer is irrelevant, they would have been in the works for a while and I'm sure sponsors would have been well aware of this.

That isn't the only reason. Reversing a steady and continuous fall in share prices returns faith in the shares.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Why wouldn't United deny it if it wasn't true?  It makes us look bad to miss out on players and it was a fucking stupid fee anyway.  There is a big difference between leaking inflated fees to the press through sources and coming out publicly and stating it.

The sponsors were already committed before we spent much more than what we did on Herrera.  There was absolutely no need to sign players like Di Maria and Falcao to please sponsors.

The only reason to chase a short term rise in share price is if the Glazers were about to unload a few.  It wasn't a factor.

Is that a serious question? 99% of the time clubs don't respond to speculation, if they did they'd just be wasting entire press conferences commenting on rumour after rumour. Also, as far as I'm aware the question was never asked to directly to any United representativite for them to be even given the chance to deny it. Are United ment to hold a press conference or release a statement solely to deny a rumour?    

Perez is a known bullshitter so it's no different at all to leaking stuff to the press, it's different approaches but it's the same shit.

Don't be naive, the sponsors would have required some guarantees from United in regards to their transfer activity before agreeing the deal. Whether the deals came before or after the official announcement transfer is irrelevant, they would have been in the works for a while and I'm sure sponsors would have been well aware of this.

That isn't the only reason. Reversing a steady and continuous fall in share prices returns faith in the shares.

It was asked to Moyes, he wouldn't answer it.

Sponsors wouldn't get guarantees like that, it's too difficult to guarantee transfers will happen and you don't want to end up spunking ridiculous amounts of money on players because the sponsors have insisted on a certain amount being spent. Any incentives would be based on performance.

Why would they give a fuck about the share price when they're not selling? It's like if you own a house and you find out house prices are going up, if you're not selling your house you don't care.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
It was asked to Moyes, he wouldn't answer it.

Sponsors wouldn't get guarantees like that, it's too difficult to guarantee transfers will happen and you don't want to end up spunking ridiculous amounts of money on players because the sponsors have insisted on a certain amount being spent.  Any incentives would be based on performance.

Why would they give a fuck about the share price when they're not selling?  It's like if you own a house and you find out house prices are going up, if you're not selling your house you don't care.

What does Moyes saying nothing prove?

Sponsors would get guarantees like that. It's exactly the reason why you see so many top clubs signing needless big name players ala Madrid, Barca, Bayern, etc.... No way in hell would United have sealed the deals they did if the sponsor didn't have had some clauses/guarantees about big name signings, especially after the season you had. Also, like I said most transfers are in the pipeline for awhile, Falcao said he had been in talks with you for months so just because the sponsorship deals came after his official confirmation it doesn't matter because they would have been aware of the calibre of player United were prepared to sign.

Just because you're not selling your house at that exact point in time it doesn't mean you won't in the future. It shows a trend from which you can gauge the market, if share prices had continued to plummet it doesn't bode well for a number of reasons, not least in terms of future sales of any % of the club.

Also, you personally might not give a fuck, but who wants to leave in a house that's value is decreasing? Obviously it's not the end of the world but ideally you don't want that and if you can do something to stop it most would.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
It was asked to Moyes, he wouldn't answer it.

Sponsors wouldn't get guarantees like that, it's too difficult to guarantee transfers will happen and you don't want to end up spunking ridiculous amounts of money on players because the sponsors have insisted on a certain amount being spent.  Any incentives would be based on performance.

Why would they give a fuck about the share price when they're not selling?  It's like if you own a house and you find out house prices are going up, if you're not selling your house you don't care.

What does Moyes saying nothing prove?

Sponsors would get guarantees like that. It's exactly the reason why you see so many top clubs signing needless big name players ala Madrid, Barca, Bayern, etc.... No way in hell would United have sealed the deals they did if the sponsor didn't have had some clauses/guarantees about big name signings, especially after the season you had. Also, like I said most transfers are in the pipeline for awhile, Falcao said he had been in talks with you for months so just because the sponsorship deals came after his official confirmation it doesn't matter because they would have been aware of the calibre of player United were prepared to sign.

Just because you're not selling your house at that exact point in time it doesn't mean you won't in the future. It shows a trend from which you can gauge the market, if share prices had continued to plummet it doesn't bode well for a number of reasons, not least in terms of future sales of any % of the club.

Also, you personally might not give a fuck, but who wants to leave in a house that's value is decreasing? Obviously it's not the end of the world but ideally you don't want that and if you can do something to stop it most would.

If it wasn't true he'd have denied it to avoid the embarrassment of having missed out on yet another transfer target after the very public failures to land Thiago, Fabregas, Baines and Cristiano Ronaldo.

If you believe Falcao when he said that then you're pretty naive. He wanted Madrid, he came to us when he realised that wasn't happening. Sponsors can't dictate transfers to clubs, if you think a man like Louis Van Gaal would accept that you are on drugs.

The share price is irrelevant to the Glazers, they have no control, and any full sale is a long way off. If it wasn't they would have binned Moyes when he wiped £220m off the value of the club - they didn't, they kept him, for footballing reasons.

City are shit hehe