Tag Archives: Manchester United

How the mighty Man U have fallen

I usually do not blog too much about other clubs, unless I am mocking them in a sarcastic manner. But this blog is a little bit different, as whilst it is about Man U, it is also relatable to Arsenal.

Last night Liverpool hosted Man U in what has to be one of the dullest Premier League games of all time. Littered with pointless fouls – there were 5 in the first 4 minutes – the game never got going. It was supposedly going to be watched by a billion people around the globe, an advert for the Premier League. It would have sent a billion people to sleep.

ISIS will be forcing its captives to watch re-runs of the game with toothpicks keeping their eyelids open as it’s latest form of torture. Having to re-watch the game over and over again will have people screaming to be burnt alive or drowned in a cage.

It is the media response to the game that has surprised me. untitled

BBC Sport’s Chief Football writer, Phil McNulty, described the game as ‘vintage Jose Mourinho’. That he was ushering in a new Man Utd way. Others, on TV, radio and in the written press, have gone out of their way to praise Mourinho’s tactics, describing it, amongst as other things, as a master class from Mourinho.

Whilst Gary Neville said the game gave him doubts over Man U’s title credentials this season he was apparently encouraged.

They nullified Liverpool, grinding out a 0-0 draw. Playing ultra defensive, breaking up the play at every opportunity. Mourinho and Man U set themselves up to not lose the game, rather than win. Hardly any touches in the opponents box, limited position, a single shot on target and their 1^st corner in the 82^nd minute.

Touches in opposition penalty area this weekend:
Man City 64
Nathan Redmond 12
Man Utd 6

— Duncan Alexander (@oilysailor) October 17, 2016

Now had this been David Moyes’ Sunderland, Tony Pullis’ West Brom, or any Sam Allardyce side in the last 20 years, I would fully understand the praise. A lowly side, battling out for a draw against a title challenger.

But this was not a bottom 3 side fighting for their life, it was Man U, the most successful team in English football history.

Victory last night for Man U by 2 goals would have seen them actually leap frog their great rivals in the league. They would have been 4^th in the league, 3 points off top. Not bad for a side in apparent turmoil.

A 0-0 draw has left them in 7^th place. 3 points behind Liverpool, 5 points behind the league leaders. Rather than getting praise for an underwhelming performance, their should be criticism for Jose Mourinho who last night conceded the title. By not going for the win, he showed that he does not believe Man U are title contenders. He is not even aiming for top 4. He was happy with a draw.

What yesterday showed is why Man U are playing on a Monday night on a Champions League week. They were awful. And this shows how Man U have fallen.

In 2012/13 they were Champions for the 5^th time in 7 years. They had not finished outside the top 2 in 8 seasons. The last time they finished below 3^rd was in 1991. And here they were, putting 10 men behind the ball, hoofing the ball forward, not interested in scoring, happy for a draw that kept them 7^th.

25 years of not being out of the top 3, they have now failed to break into the top 3 in the last 3 seasons. The way they set up, the way they played Monday, it does not look like they will make top 3 this season. And yet we should be celebrating Mourinho?

After their title win in 2012/13, Fergie left Man U, and since then things have gone to pot. And this is where the Arsenal stuff comes in.

Firstly in came David Moyes. The British manager given a chance. He spent a summer trying to sign central midfielders, got turned down by everyone, and ended up with Marouane Fellaini from his old club, Everton. And that was it.

Including the January signing of Juan Mata, Moyes spent £68m, was sacked in April, Giggs shagged his brothers misses and they finished 7^th.

Next up was Louis van Gaal. The managerial genius who once substituted his goal keeper before a penalty shoot out. He spent the good part of £250m on players, and his only game changing tactic was to hoof it up to David Moyes’ Fellaini in the last 10 minutes in the hope he headed one in. 4^th and 5^th and an FA Cup finish. Not a disaster, but not the success Man U fans desire, expect, and have gotten used to.

He was soon out the door when Jose Mourinho came in.

Mourinho has spent £150m over the summer. Including a world record transfer fee on Paul Pogba, who has since gone missing. His key players have been Moyes’ Fellaini and Moyes’ Mata. The result of his investment and genius has left Man U in 7^th place, celebrating a 0-0 draw against Liverpool as if they have just beaten Barcelona in a Champions League Final.

Four summers since Fergie left, nearly half a billion spent by 3 managers and for what? To fail to break into the top 4 in all but one season. To play like Stoke City under Pullis or Bolton under Allardyce. 10 men behind the ball. Hoofing it to Zlatan Ibrahimovic who has no pace to run onto it. And the manager being labelled a genius for overseeing the dull game.

How the mighty have fallen.

There is a stark warning for Arsenal in what is happening at Man U. Both for fans and the board alike.

In van Gaal and Mourinho, they got in two manager who, on paper, were at the top of their game. They have given them all the resources they need to be successful. Both have spent the f**king money. And it has got them very little. A single FA Cup in 4 years and playing for a 0-0 draw away from home against a rival.

The time is coming when Arsene Wenger will leave Arsenal. But him leaving, and the new manager spending £100m+ a season will not guarantee success. It will not automatically make Arsenal champions. It will not even guarantee us top 3.

Man U have gone from perennial title challengers to mid table battlers in the space of 3 years. Only Leicester’s fall from grace has been grander in recent years. And spent £500m for the privilege.

The fact the media are going so OTT praising them for a dull 0-0 draw shows just how far Man U have fallen.

Keenos
Follow @KeenosAFC

Nacho Monreal, Title Race, Liverpool v Man U & Mauro Icardi

Is Chelsea’s shirt deal that much better than Arsenal’s

4 Replies

Before I start, let me apologise for any errors in this blog. I am writing it on a phone on the way to Sudbury for a long weekend away for my birthday (32 on Monday thanks for asking).

So yesterday (or was it the day before?) it was announced that Chelsea had signed a new £900m shirt deal. An astronomical amount outstripping anything seen in English football. Or that is what the media would have liked you to believe.

That was the original Daily Mail headline. It was one of those situations where the headline writers hadn’t actually read the article.

So a deal that outstrips United which is less than what Manchester United receive from Adidas on a yearly basis. The Daily Mail very quickly changed their headline to:

“Chelsea announce new 15-year £900m kit deal from next season with Nike after ending adidas partnership”

Exact same article. But a changed headline after the original was found to be lie by its own article.

Anyway, no matter if it is the biggest, or 2nd biggest, on paper it is a massive deal. £30m more than Arsenal’s current deal.

This lead many an Arsenal fan to point to how poor our current deal is. That it was an awful deal. At half the value of Chelsea’s, who are a smaller club (yet incidentally sell more shirts.)

But this is a massive overreaction. Let’s actually break it down.

In 2013, Arsenal agreed a £30m-a-year 5 year deal with Puma. At the time it was the most lucrative kit deal in the British game. A year later Man U signed a 10 year £75m-a-year deal with Adidas. That pushed Arsenal into a distant 2nd. Also in 2013, Chelsea signed a new 10 year £30m-a-year deal, also with Adidas.

So up until yesterday, Arsenal had the 2nd best deal in English football. We now have the 3rd.

Now we do not know what makes up all of these deals. When Man U signed there’s, it was announced that they would no longer be getting a percentage of global kit sales. Instead they would merely get the profit on the mark up on their own shop sales that any sportswear retailer would get.

I would imagine that the new Chelsea deal follows similar lines. Big upfront money, but no share of the global profits.

What this immediately does is bring a mockery to the headlines that “Ibrahimovic will pay his salary in short sales”, and similar headlines when Pogba signed, and other top players. Because ultimately the main profiteers from shirt sales will now be Adidas (or in Chelsea’s case Nike). The reality is clubs will make little from actually selling the shirts now.

It is unknown if Arsenal make a percentage on shirt sales. They do have their “buy direct” campaign so they may well not make anything.

On top of this, for Chelsea, Nike will be putting their tick on all the usually football club merchandise. Training tops, polos, track bottoms. Once again Chelsea will no longer receive a portion of the global sales. Just a profit on what they sell in their own club shops.

But it is still an astronomical deal. And one which does blow Arsenal’s out of the water. Until you do the maths.

Firstly, Chelsea have had to pay £40m to Adidas to buy themselves out of their current deal. Over the 15 year deal, it doesn’t do much. The £900m deal is now worth £860m. But the key is that £40m won’t be spread out over the deal. It will be an upfront payment.

So next year, rather than Chelsea having a £60m positive from sponsorship in their accounts, yeh will have to offset £40n leaving them with just £20m from th 1st year of the deal. It’s all about the net (see what I did there?).

Now Arsenal have 2 seasons left on the current deal. So let’s compare the deals over the next 2 seasons.

Over the next 2 seasons, Arsenal will receive £60m from Puma – £30m-a-year.

In the same period, Chelsea will pocket £120m from Nike. But also have to pay Adidas £40m. This leaves them with £80m income from kit sponsorship deals over the next 2 seasons.

So Chelsea are set to make £80m, Arsenal £60m. A difference of £10m-a-year. Suddenly the eyewatering differing of £30m-a-year has been blown out of the warer.

So the Chelsea deal is £20m more over the next 2 seasons than Arsenal’s 3 year old deal. And then in 2018, Arsenal will have an opportunity to negoatiate a new deal, that you would expect to be a lot closer, or even more than, Chelsea’s current one.

The 2013 deal was not a bad deal. Let’s put it into normal life. In 2013, I got my flat revalued. It was valued at £180,000. Had I sold them, I would have made a nice £40,000 profit on what I bought it for in 2008.

Last week I accepted an offer on my flat (1 bedroom new-ish build in Walthamstow). £320,000. Now had my neighbour sold 3 years ago, at the time people might have said “good deal, good profit”. But then I sell mine this year, for nearly twice as much. Was my neighbours deal a good deal or a poor deal?

Well at the time it was a good deal. But market forces pushed house prices in Walthamstow up dramatically. Now it looks like a bad deal. But that simply isn’t the case.

The other key factor with Chcelsea’s deal is the length of time. 15 years is a long time in football.

We saw this when Arsenal signed a deal with Emirates in 2004, starting in 2006. A £100m for shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights. It was a huge sum of money which enabled us access to the finance needed to complete the Emirates Stadium.

At the time, clubs were happy if they got £1m a year for stadium naming rights.

But as time went on, thee deal looked poor. It was massively front loaded. Other clubs started to get more money for shirt sponsorships. More for stadium naming. But Arsenal were in a long term 15 year deal for he stadium (less for the shirts.) In 2012 Arsenal renegotiated the deals. £150m, extend day the shirt deal to the end of the 2018/19 season and the stadium naming rights to 2028.

Football and football finances are moving quickly. Remember, just 3 years ago Chelsea increased their deal with Adidas to £30m. And now it is at £60m with Nike.

Te deal with Nike looks good in 2016, but how will it look in 2031? The way things are going, it’ll probably start to look a bad deal in around 2020-2022. It will still have 10ish years to run. They have just paid £40m to buy out the Adidas deal, and have a history of doing it with buying out Samsung to get in a Japanese tyre company. The contractual punishment for breaking the Nike deal will be as astronomical as the Nike deal itself. That is, of course, if the football bubble doesn’t burst. It’s a bit like getting a fixed term mortgage!

So over the next 2 seasons, Chelsea will make £10m more a season than Arsenal. Then Arsenal will sign a new deal. So before people throw their toys out the prams, the is he difference between the 2 clubs is not that much.

Let’s see what the new deal Arsenal agree before we complain / bitch / winge / moan. We may end up making Chelsea’s deal look very poor indeed.

Keenos

Follow @KeenosAfc