gingerballs 0 Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hey new here but a big football fan - Spurs since I was a kid. We're on the up! Found this that was quite interesting on the Glazers and the interet. Denis Campbell Sunday October 10, 2004 The Observer Ten years ago English football was a different game. Fans could pay at the gate, grounds were often only two-thirds full, average attendance was 26,000 and not every Premiership stadium was all-seat. Sky Sports showed 40 live matches per season, and only on Sunday afternoons and Monday nights. Fast-forward a decade. You must buy your ticket in advance, the average crowd is over 35,000, and across the season's 380 Premier League games, grounds are 95 per cent full. This season Sky will screen 138 fixtures live and there are three different kick-off times on Saturdays alone. The top players earn £80,000 to £100,000 a week: that would have been several months wages to most Premier League footballers in 1994. There have been similarly radical changes in the communications industry. Britain's 60 million citizens own 56.2m mobile phones; in 1994 it was just a few million. A decade ago few Britons had even heard of text messages; last year we sent 20.5 billion of them. Sky had 3.6m subscribers, fewer than half the number in 2004. And back then the world somehow coped without the as-yet-uninvented joys of photo-messaging, video-phones and Freeview set-top boxes. It is in this context of dramatic change in football, lifestyle and technology that Malcolm Glazer's bid to buy Manchester United makes sense, especially given the similarly dizzying upheaval still to come in those areas. When the takeover approach was confirmed last week, most business analysts were sceptical. How, they asked, could the 76-year-old American hope to make a serious profit on an investment of about £800m? Nobody seemed to know. Advertiser links M&M Sports for Football Shirts Save on your favourite team's replica shirts at M&M Sports. mandmsports.com Team Colours Football kits for clubs, teams and schools. Made at... team-colours.co.uk Official Football Shirts at Sport-e.com Buy the official football shirts from Adidas, Nike, Puma,... sport-e.com The answer lies in what football and telecommunications might be like in 2014. If the changes over the next 10 years are as significant as they have been since 1994, Glazer's move might make him a fortune. The booming popularity of broadband internet - which lets fans watch TV-quality pictures on a personal computer, and allows every club to act as its own TV station - is the key. Privately, many United insiders are sceptical about Glazer's chances of making even bigger profits. 'How do you sweat what is probably football's dampest asset?' asked one. 'How would you do that except in the ways United are already doing it?' Understandably, the sceptics point to United's status as the world's most profitable football club. Their annual profits may have dropped from £39.35m to £27.91m last year because of their relatively poor performance in both the Premiership and Champions League, but that £27.91m is still far more than any English or top European club made. It is no coincidence, however, that both Glazer and the Cubic Expression duo of John Magnier and JP McManus - the Irish investors who own 29 per cent of United, and whose stake Glazer wants to buy, to add to his own 19 per cent holding - see Old Trafford as a superb commercial asset that, in City parlance, is significantly under-exploited. Inevitably, perhaps, for characters who are businessmen first and lovers of sport second, the trio believe that United are in effect a slot-machine that in different hands could and should deliver bigger jackpots. 'Malcolm Glazer and his sons want to own United for a number of reasons,' explains one source close to the American's plans. 'They are genuinely interested in sport; they think they could bring stability to the club; they have very smart marketing skills; they want to make the team even stronger and more successful football-wise, to make it unrivalled; and, yes, they want to make it more successful off the pitch too.' That last reason is the most important. There are plenty of ways in which United under the Glazer family's control could quickly start making even more money. Jacking up ticket prices, while unpopular, would scarcely affect United's drawing power: they were the only Premier League club to record 25 sell-outs from 25 home games last season. More of Old Trafford's 67,900 seats could be sold to corporate visitors willing to pay £100 or more a time, or many of the extra 7,700 new places that will be installed as part of Old Trafford's planned expansion could become 'executive' seats. Selling the stadium naming rights, as Arsenal have just done for their new home, would be easily the biggest money-spinner of that sort in football history. If the airline is prepared to pay £40m-£60m over 15 years to have the Gunners' new home called The Emirates Stadium, how much would Nike or Coca-Cola stump up to have Old Trafford renamed? Gambling would also provide a lucrative new revenue stream. Some football finance analysts believe United could use their worldwide popularity and their manutd.com website to become, in effect, an online global bookie. Their existing arrangement to have Ladbrokes as their 'official gaming partner' has only skimmed the surface of the huge potential there. United's best opportunity to make huge profits, though, is to get control of their own broadcasting rights and then use the ongoing revolution in broadband internet access to fully exploit the club's global popularity by persuading fans to pay to watch Wayne Rooney, Ruud van Nistelrooy and the rest live on a United website. The resulting revenue could reach £100m a year or more, and would destroy the competitiveness of not just the Premier league but the Champions League too - unless, of course, other super-clubs were doing the same. For United, broadband offers the chance to create a massive worldwide network of fans who pay a monthly or annual subscription to watch action from Old Trafford on personal computers or computer-fed TV including, crucially, live Premiership games. And if they can pull off that trick, then Liverpool, Juventus, Real Madrid and other clubs will quickly follow. Initially TV cameras will provide the pictures seen by broadband, but ultimately broadband could replace television altogether. Technological advances will soon end the inferior quality of pictures seen on the internet compared with TV. 'If Malcolm Glazer got control of United and put exclusive club content on broadband, he could charge people to watch goals, highlights, archive games, player interviews, training sessions and, if things changed in the future, live Premier League games. Any club with a decent following abroad could monetise those people that way,' explains Dan Markham of Octagon, the sports marketing group. Broadband is spreading fast; very fast. While only some 100m people worldwide will have access to it by the end of 2004, numbers are going up rapidly in Asia, North America and parts of Europe. Only 3.2m households in the UK have it now, but that is predicted to rise to 5m by next year. The stunning growth in recent years of what were once niche markets - multi-channel TV, text messaging, even mobile phones - shows the potential rewards for any sports club or league who can 'monetise' by broadband. 'Being American, and given the fact that America already has 30m homes with broadband, Glazer could start a United subscription broadband service there first,' says Markham. 'You have a potential market of tens of millions there and United are already a powerful brand there.' They could then seek to repeat the trick in China, Japan and beyond. Kevin Roberts, editorial direc tor of Sport Business , says: 'United are one of the few clubs that have the global fan base you need to make this a serious business proposition. Once broadband really takes off, United could cash in on their status as the only truly established international superbrand in English football and eventually make maybe £2m or £3m per match, adding perhaps as much as £70m a season to their income.' What will happen if Europe's superclubs succeed in this? The trouble, as Markham and Roberts point out, is that their domestic leagues will become even more uncompetitive. And the on-off idea of creating a European Super League, if not a global league, could finally be realised. If all this sounds fanciful, consider that in America, one million baseball fans now pay $2.95 a day, $14.95 a month or $80 a season to watch up to 15 Major League Baseball matches live every day on a broadband website. Last year it was 500,000. During Euro 2004, fans wanting to see 10-minute highlight packages of games from Portugal soon after the final whistle paid €14.99 to do just that on the euro2004.com action broadband service. The site had more than two million visits during the tournament, but Uefa will not reveal how many people subscribed. In England, most of the 20 Premier League clubs operate a subscription-based broadband internet service where fans can, for a small fee, watch highlights, interviews and behind-the-scenes material. Between them they have about 100,000 subscribers worldwide. Since 2003 Sky Sports have been offering subscribers in the UK and Ireland highlights of events such as the Champions League, Ryder Cup and Premier League via broadband. 'I can't tell you how many subscribers we have except that it's growing rapidly, but off a low base,' says Steve Nuttall, head of enterprises at Sky Sports. In all these ventures, what industry experts call 'displaced fans' - a Liverpool supporter living in Thailand, a New York Yankees follower on a trip to Seattle, an English cricket enthusiast on work placement in Australia - are the main target. While home-based fans can usually see what they want through domestic television, those outside the country often cannot. But thanks to the rapid globalisation of football, there are more and more 'displaced fans'. A recent survey by sports sponsorship agency Sport + Markt calculated that Real Madrid had 490m fans or potential fans around the world, with United second on 350m. Turning those fans into subscribers to a dedicated club broadband service could generate vast wealth. Nobody pretends that webcasting - offering live sporting action or highlights via broadband internet - is yet a serious money-spinner. But then, who in 1994 would have predicted games kicking off at lunchtime, 3pm and teatime on Saturdays? And who in 1991-92 really believed that the then Big Five clubs would dare to break away and form their own league, the Premier League? The problem for United in seeking to go down this road, whoever owns the club, is that the Premier League control their, and the other 19 clubs', broadcasting rights. In Italy and Spain, clubs sell their rights individually; here the league does it collectively. 'The only rights which United control are those to friendlies, testimonials, tours, Uefa Cup games and matches they play in the final qualifying round of the Champions League. The value of those is nothing compared to being able to show live Premiership games, which is where they could make really serious money,' stresses Roberts. While the 20 clubs have taken back more and more rights to exploit themselves with each new Sky contract, they can still show only highlights or full-match delayed reruns, not live games. When the Premier League chairmen sit down in 2006 to discuss the shape of the deal that will start in August 2007, Roman Abramovich's Chelsea, Liverpool - with a significant fan base in Asia - and Arsenal could all join United in seeking that concession, if not more. United have long been frustrated at earning far less from the Premier League's collective TV deals at home and abroad than they arguably deserve, given the large number of viewers they deliver. Last season, for instance, the League distributed to its 20 clubs £457.7m from the domestic broadcasting contract with Sky, of which United got £31.3m, or 6.8 per cent. It was the same with the share-out of the £65m from foreign television companies. United, despite being English football's undisputed big attraction, got the same £2.83m as the other 19 clubs. Yet they provide, by common agreement, at least 25 per cent of all fans who tune in. This is why their former chairman, Sir Roland Smith, once suggested that the Premier League should let United sell their own TV rights and then pay a 'tax' on the resulting income as compensation to the other 19. Nothing changed. And when the new three-year broadcasting contracts were being discussed by the clubs early last year, Peter Kenyon, then still United's chief executive, again tried to get United more money. He requested the introduction of a 'weighting system' for the distribution of revenue generated from selling live Premier League games abroad, with payments linked to popularity. Unsurprisingly, the club chairmen rejected the proposal 19-1. If the Glazers get control of Old Trafford, United are unlikely to accept the rejection of such demands. The defining trends of European football in the past decade have been globalisation, commercialisation, broadcasting and elitism. Harnessing the worldwide popularity of football's lucky few clubs through broadband technology draws all those together perfectly. The Glazers know that, even if most others don't yet. Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Hi gingerballs , thanks for that I hadn't seen it. Interesting read. Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/3735276.stm You don't say. But what a fool for admitting it, I think he should get slammed with some sort of real punishment for that..... Link to post Share on other sites
2pints-mate 0 Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Idiot he is. Link to post Share on other sites
giggsy 0 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 It looks like the fool might not get away with it after all, although what they would do? probably nothing meaningful. Link to post Share on other sites
connackers 0 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 He is such a muppet! And he admitted it to show how clever he is With any luck sven will play Shaun Wright-Phillips who will have a blinder and put some pressure on Beckham to start playing like he used to and to start acting like a captain should. [edited `cause i`m an idiot!] Link to post Share on other sites
sanjo 2 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Admitted to how clever he was Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Beckham truly is a ****ing dipstick. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 and now today he has issued an apology for it. what a muppet. its like he just reads the back pages, and then responds accordingly, rather than just using his brain. The Guardian had him on the front page of their sport section with the huge headline 'He Should Know Better' - and I think that is what prompted his admission. I reckon The Guardian should slam his apology, and see if that prompts him yet into another public statement, and keep on doing it everyday :-) Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 He's sorry. OK, well thats ok then. We all forgive him. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I think you guys are being too hard on him. Surely you don’t expect anything from someone who grew up around a working class pastime like football? Link to post Share on other sites
Honest John 0 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Well you might expect something from someone who has an army of image advisors etc. that tell him what to say. He really should know not to open his big gob so much, however basically stupid he is. Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 A story on the 'why cant he shut up' theme http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1327928,00.html Link to post Share on other sites
giggsy 0 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Quote: a working class pastime like football It's universal, mate. Update your opinions. Link to post Share on other sites
giggsy 0 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 rach, seen this? http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13235488,00.html Link to post Share on other sites
giggsy 0 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Well done chap. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Quote: Update your opinions. So it was a working-class pastime! I stand corrected. It is a universal, working-class pastime. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Most of the pros are working class though. Link to post Share on other sites
connackers 0 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 [will try to remember not to post again while pissed!] Link to post Share on other sites
ian.f 0 Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 How do you get the games here? (and how much does it all cost?) Link to post Share on other sites
brit-gob 9 Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Prawn sandwich, is that Siren? ian.f - skyperfect tv has quite a few football packs. There's a Premier pack, I think its 1500 yen and they put about 4 games on live each week. Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Prawn sandwiches where does that story come from. I see Chelski got beat last night my Man City. Tough one to take. What sports are non-working class then? Polo? Backgammon? Link to post Share on other sites
connackers 0 Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Backgammon ain`t posh, it`s hardcore and street Polo on the other hand is blantantly posh as fu*k. Possibly rugby and cricket also - bit of a pointless argument though. As for Beckam being a **** it`s got f-all to do with him being working class and more to do with him being a complete idiot who`s more concerned with his image than playing football. This hostility is in no way due to Chelsea`s complete inability to score goals and Arsenal looking to score a hundred goals before christmas. Looked like Liverpool had a good comeback though Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nice result at the weekend there. A prawn sandwich "article" for you, gg. So Who Is Eating All The Prawn Sandwiches? Prawn sandwiches, usually served in brown bread for colour enhancement, was at one time the choice of the upper classes. The mere cost of the product was once high enough to stiffen the blue collars of the working class. Prawns gained plebeian popularity through the enigmatically esteemed prawn cocktail - in the years when the product was, along with Black Forest Gateaux, regarded as the epitome of fine living. Prawns still carry some connotations that label them as high-class food. None other than Roy Keane of Manchester United highlighted the connection when he 'suggested' that the fans were more interested in eating prawn sandwiches than watching the football. The placid mid-fielder insinuated that prawns are a highbrow food, unsuitable for the rough and tumble of the terraces. The assumption was that the consumption of prawns, rather than a pie, is the sort of social climbing pretension that is ruining football today. According to John Nicholson of Football 365, the VIP prawn-sandwich-munching culture is now dominant even in lower leagues, as "middle-class pretension inexorably spreads throughout the culture of football, like so much cheese fondue on a stripped pine table.' Talk of the innocuous prawn has even been heard along political corridors of power. Robin Ramsey's book 'Hidden Power Behind New Labour' details the usual machinations of the political world, and according to some reviewers, revealed that prawn cocktails are an analogy of Pink Thatcheries. The insinuation that prawns are limited to any given sector of society must be questioned though. The sheer size of the prawn market indicates a much wider support base than simple social wannabees or even Manchester United fans. For people to be munching their way through £175 million worth of prawn sandwiches a year, their appeal must be widespread. Interestingly, the breakdown of prawn sandwich spend in the UK shows that 65 per cent of purchases, relating to around £114 million, were conducted by female consumers. Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Mutu : I'm in shock http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/sporttop/t...-name_page.html ...what, that he got caught. Cocaine test positive apparently. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts