What has happened to the English teams in the CL?

Pff. Arsenal can ********ing blow me.

They never won a goddamn thing in Europe and only made their money by putting a stupid cannon on their jersey which had mass market appeal.

 

They made their money by......? What?

I'm almost at a loss for words.

I'll just say "Cup Winners Cup" and leave it at that...

 

they were setting records in the 1930s and ever since, so keep dreaming whatever crap you want. just to say, pozzo based a lot of his football ideas on what was going on under chapman before and during his arsenal days, not that this will make much sense to you.

 

*Slow clap...*

 

What are you arguing exactly?

 

Nice way to admit you were wrong

 

I think he's arguing that the strategies that brought Arsenal to prominence were the inspiration for Catenaccio, which in turn is the cornerstone of Italian footballs tactical approach and central to it's greatest successes.

Ergo, without Arsenal, your nation's football history could be very different.

(I don't recall offhand if Chapman was also the person who decided that people like teams with cannons on their shirts)

 

********ing Arsenal, I have watch some of this crap because of them? They're true ********ing cunts.

 

I believe that the English gentlemen of Chapman's time used the chant "Boring Boring Arsenal" to express their displeasure. But they were probably thinking the same as you.

But how can you truly hate them? I mean, have you looked at their crest? It has a cannon on it!!

 

1- i didnt check who the poster was
2- i misread the post as 'arsenal never won a goddam thing' so was a response to that.

 

catanaccio came from helenio herera and he was argentine. and he played that because he thought defense wins championship and today so called cattenaccio is noting like catanaccio of inter era we scored 179 goals in 2 years playing so cold catenaccio what chelsea played was not catenaccio. go youtube helenio and you will see what i am talking about. it has noting to do with inter and catanaccio was introduced in 1963 not 1930

 

cattenacio came from switzerland and it was called le verou.

 

that was swiss. herrera took a salernitana version and tweaked it a little bit

 

im not discussing football with a novice, but i will point out some of your errors.

 

And you believe that as factual?

So no Chapman = no catenaccio = no Italy prominence to speak of?

What the ******** do you read in your spare time and who the hell would want to publish it to begin with?

 

Did I say I believed it? I haven't a clue. I do know that Chapman pioneered a very successful, exceptionally defensive system that had Arsenal tagged as "boring" for several decades.

I was just outlining what he said, because you didn't seem to understand it. He may have been correct, he may not have been.

However, I'm quite sure that Arsenal's popularity had very little to do with what they had on their badge. I'm hoping you were kidding when you posted that.

 

Their popularity stemmed from Thierry Henry's marketability combined with EPL audiences outside of Britain finally having a choice besides Man United to support if I'm being honest.

At the same time I'm pretty positive that Arsenal being the "gun" team had subconscious appeal to American supporters.

 

What "popularity" are you talking about, because Arsenal have been a big team for generations?

Are you referring to the ever-shifting international "markets"?

I personally take that kind of support with a grain of salt. Don't get me wrong, there are many many dedicated, loyal fans around the globe, who have adopted teams for life and that's fine. However, I've also met plenty of footy fans here in the US whose fandom is of a casual nature, based on shifting variables like enjoying a teams current playing style, or the presence of a favoured player.

I know for a fact that there are fans in places like North America and Asia who will pick up a team because they have one of their national team's stars playing for them.

However, you need to be quite young to have Man United as the "only option" to support in England. During my childhood, I knew significantly more Liverpool than United fans. I'll grant you that Blackburn and Newcastle may not have sustained themselves for long enough as title contenders to grow their support, but Arsene Wenger joined Arsenal a just few years later and in any case, they had been champions as recently as 1989 (as well as Cup Winners Cup champions in the early 90s).

I don't think that's anywhere near long enough for United to usurp every other big team in England. Plus have you seen how many Liverpool fans there are in Scandinavia?

 

Yet we can't ignore Man United's extraordinary rise to prominence coupled with the Beckham phenomena which cemented Man United as the 'casual fans' team of choice around the globe. I don't have the figures handy, but its likely that most of those supporters stuck with ManU as a result and have been supporting the club ever since.

You wouldn't believe it but we probably have as many Liverpool fans in my city of Toronto. In fact, Toronto FC was marketed to be a branding clone of Liverpool FC which appealed to the masses. Lots of Liverpool families immigrated to Canada in places like Scarborough and Hamilton and although their kids adopted hockey as the sport of choice, they are loyal to Liverpool to this day.

A lot of them are Toronto FC season ticket holders.

 

Manchester United's "extraordinary rise"? You get that Man United have been a huge club for decades right? The Busby Babes? Munich? Charlton/Law/Best?

I was just pointing out that they've never been the only show in town - which you've concurred with your Liverpool anecdote.

Your theories on clubs' levels of popularity suggest you've been following the game for about a fortnight.

 

You're completely ignoring the globalization of the sport, and how that market expansion has turned clubs like Man United into economic and cultural superpowers. You're acting like the Busby Babes had any meaningful cultural influence that lasted decades like anybody in Asia or America even remotely watched or even knew about those teams.

Think about it. There have been more successful teams than Man United on the world stage, yet ManU is the most recognizable money maker in its class. Outside of Real Madrid, only Arsenal comes close and ironically they haven't won much outside of Britain.

Yes they have had successes before, but the context and implications are a world apart.

 

There are no words for how wrong that sentence is.

...and then you follow it up by claiming Arsenal are the third most popular club in the world.

Barcelona, Liverpool, AC Milan and Bayern Munich beg to differ.

The reason United make so much revenue? They were one of the first teams to pursue extensive branding and merchandising as well as following a profit-based business model.

Being arguably the world's most famous team positioned them to do that successfully. That worldwide fame came prior to Beckham's birth, prior to anyone but Real Madrid being European Champions and definitely prior to the "globalisation" of the sport*.

If you don't know how that happened without being the most successful club "on the world stage", I can't help you.

Let's just say it's ironic that you implied I didn't read enough...


*=PS Last time I checked, football has been a global sport since the early twentieth century. Unless your definition of "globalisation" is a subset of fans in Asia and North America watching the EPL on cable...

 

...and? I'm still waiting in suspense for the explanation as to why?

I said "money maker". Market notoriety encompasses several things, but the only tangible way to measure is gross capital. I haven't checked the stats in a while but Arsenal I believe is right under Man United in the world top 3, (number 1 being Real Madrid as it stands).

However Barcelona is definitely creeping in the top 3 if they haven't already.

Well I don't know if they were the first but they were certainly the most successful. Of course it helps when you have the most famous player in football history.

Listen man, I know that's what you want to believe and I don't blame you - but the truth is Beckham made Man United. (the modern Man United)

Now before your head explodes, consider that while Manchester United was among the most famous British teams (for periods) England was just recovering from the European ban and EPL teams hadn't received much exposure. Suddenly ManU comes back, wins the treble with Beckham whipping in the winning assist from a corner against Bayern, and it all went from there. Kudos to the Man United marketing system for making the most of it, I don't even think they could have predicted the market explosion that ensued.

Lol, how can they be famous around the globe prior to globalization?

Beckham's United, even the Premiership as a whole - its entire growth from economic mediocrity into a superpower couldn't of happened without Man United. All the TV deals from around the world, all the merchandise and branding did not predate the Beckham era.

Last time you checked? Check again. Asia represents an enormous market share and in the US and Arab nations its ever-growing.

If Man U was as famous pre Beckham around the world as you say, why weren't they buying the Juan Sebastian Veron's or the Jaap Staam's or the Nistelrooy's from those days?

Face it. The R.O.I from Man U's fame relative to its era pre - late 90's pales in comparison to what they have now. You keep clinging on to some romantic image which is nice for you but it doesn't bear anything significant in relation to what is factual 'today'.

 

Money makers?

Arsenal are about fifth currently and that's largely because of Wenger's policy of signing potential and selling at a profit.

Madrid are the highest revenue raisers with Barca just behind. Man United are currently third while Bayern Munich are just behind them.

Now onto your other drivel:
The Munich Air Disaster took that young, already successful and highly rated team, with so much more potential that we never saw realised. Sympathy and support for the club in the wake of that tragedy made Manchester United Football Club one of the most famous, well-supported teams on the planet.

THAT was the starting point for what you see today.

Beckham made Manchester United????? He's the reason we signed Veron and Van Nistelrooy????

We were signing some of the most expensive players around long before he was in our team!! If anything, United's profile is what made HIM!!!

You think United weren't a highly profitable club, with fans around the world before that?? OMFG!!!

Our profile was what enabled us to move into Merchandising, float on the stock exchange....

All that stuff happened long before Beckham even got a sniff at a first team appearance.

Yes, it's gotten bigger in the last decade as the EPL has exploded, but the seeds were planted much earlier. The only reason Liverpool aren't making quite as much (they're still in the top ten revenue-raisers) is due to their profligacy in expanding their 'brand' and they haven't won the English title in over two decades.


********ing Cannons on shirts....

 

I`m not suggesting the seed wasn`t planted before. The Busby Boy`s and their story started something but what became of it in the mid to late 90`s during Beckham`s tenure and afterwards out performs everything else.

Man United went on the stock exchange in 1991 where the were valued around 47 million pound sterling. At the moment they`re valued in the billions.

Whatever inflationary rate you decide to apply (I`m not going to bother to look it up because I know I`m right) that kind of evaluation in such a short amount of time is astronomical.

Yes the Busby Boy`s planted the seed but the Beckham era was the catalyst.