The club to invest a huge amount in the building of new toilets at Layer rd ,good news if you have forgotten your wellingtons. The big boys invest in other things ... Sir Alex Ferguson earned a staggering £2,165,000 from Manchester United between October 2013 and June last year in his role as £100,000-a-day ‘global ambassador’ for the club. The figure, first revealed by Sportsmail, is officially declared in club accounts recently lodged at Companies House and confirms the 73-year-old Scot’s long association with United remains highly lucrative for him. The same accounts show Sir Bobby Charlton was also paid by United in 2013-14 for ‘consultancy services’, although he made just £105,000. Who knows if Cambridge wins the replay ,toilet paper as well Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...United-s-global-ambassador.html#ixzz3PxBaumNI Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Snouts in troughs spring to mind, and why does Charlton go to matches, when the camera pays him homage he looks like he is sitting in a puddle..
Still remember the toilets at the fulwell end. All you needed was somebody with 10 pints in them standing pissing next to you. piss stained Doc Martens.
The pyramid system is not putting enough money into grass roots football,the harsh reality is that unless a game comes along like this the grass roots of the game is a dead duck ,its obvious more money needs to be put into the lower leagues to preserve the sport at the lower level ,the luck of the draw it certainly is that.
Yes, I remember Berwick Rangers drawing Glasgow Rangers in the Scottish Cup about ten years ago. They drew, and went to replay at Ibrox. It was 0-0 till 66 mins and then G. Rangers got a couple of goals and went through. But the Berwick chairman came on Radio 5 Live that night and said "Our future is assured now for the next seven years"! If ever I can contribute to an appeal for Berwick, Queen of the South (Dumfries), Carlisle, Barrow, Workington Town, Blyth, Gateshead, Hartlepool or Darlington I always give what I can. It's very hard for clubs like that.
After years of working away from home and always seeking out football matches in midweek to escape the digs and the pub for a night i have been a member of a lot of clubs in the lower or non leagues ,i always joined if possible even if i was only in town for a few weeks ,always felt as though i was supporting the game itself and the club in question ,not just grass roots but the soul .
this is what its all about sky sports 1......... man utd vs liverpool u21s more money for the big boys ffs they have there own channels which is also showing the game what a load of garbage, Sky could have sought out a lesser game anywhere to spread some money
I don't think they rationalise it like that Stu. They'll be looking at viewing numbers. I just think they see it as a glamour tie that has caught the imagination of Joe Public. And they may have a point.
The good old bad old days eh? a torrent of piss overflowing the too small trough, usually by some bloke holding the obligatory meat pie in one hand while pissing at the same time.
Absolutely right stu - I posted something ages ago that broke down the PL prize money and took around 20 million off it and spread it amongst the lower tiers - Each team still received a massive payout in the PL and bottom place got around 5m but there was a massive amount left. Sadly the rot has already set in and the rich will just keep getting richer
That's bollocks, Stu, Sky need to get their money from somewhere, they do so by selling big games as part of their subscription, forget about the u-21's that's just a one-off. Would you pay the same amount to watch a bunch of **** footballers from the Daz Doorstep 4th division South kick each other for 90 minutes? Sky are an entertainment business, nothing to do with the FA. They have no responsibility to fund lower divisions, they probably ensure the future of their own interests by making sure the money stays in the place that makes customers keep paying for Sky. The FA should employ people who are better at negotiating with TV companies, I'm sure Sky wouldn't stop any other TV company coming in and paying for lower division football. Go to the bank with that idea, you clearly think it's relevant, see how hard the bank manager laughs in your face. The FA and the Gov't need to sort grass roots out, not some entertainment company.
Terry, I can't say I like that one bit - but you are right. There are other tv companies about, and we can hardly doubt that places the size of Bradford, Sheffield, Bristol, Portsmouth, and Leeds have the population or football interest to support it. It wouldn't gain the global interest that the PL gets, sure, but there are enough people to justify showing more football on t.v. C'mon FA, sort it.
Ultimately mate, teams like United are elite financially but teams like yours who are trying to compete on level with United/City/Chelsea would have to supplement these lower teams also, by accepting to receive less money. United could deal easily with £10m less TV money, but it'd hit teams like yours a lot harder, I'm not trying to be patronising, but what Stu's saying, it's not the answer. Each team works hard for what it's built, there should be absolutely no place for trying to force equality into sport, it is by it's very nature an industry that talent will thrive in. Intervention is not the answer, it's just the best this bunch of idiots at the FA could come up with, the solution is cleverer people making the decisions.
Whoa! I think I've maybe expressed myself badly here, Terry - I was agreeing with you entirely. What I'm saying is a 'Lower League Show'', shown either live or later at night, could easily be justified by the populations of e.g. Bradford, Sheffield, Leeds, Bristol or Portsmouth. There's no need for clubs like Sheffield United to go cap in hand to anyone - they should be marketed better themselves. I think the FA, the Football League, and the smaller tv companies could do better.
United have rights to air all their matches that are not first team games, live on MUTV. Sky probably just thought it was a good game to show people who don't subscribe to MUTV. I assume the third was Liverpool TV, I have no idea who'd pay for that **** let alone watch it.
always an interesting take on things depending who you follow i wonder what the viewing figures were for this last night ,not that it matters too much to you as you are a utd fan and bound to have watched it on mutv anyway ,the hangup i have is football is dying or in fact in its last throws of life at lower level /grass roots if it carries on it will be not long before we have a whole division gone ,yes i know the facts about sky and money but i also was led to believe the fa is the governing body for the whole of football from top to bottom ,yes wonderful money from tv but its the distribution which is terribly wrong, try applying for a grant from your county fa for help you will get more joy from the lottery funding for sport . question who paid for the new wembley ? lancaster gate was sold in 2000 for 7.5 million moved to soho square also sold and are now at wembley this is what happened ,which proves they cannot run the game and also not too good at real estate either ; The Football Association's move from Soho Square to Wembley cost the organisation £17m, accounts released tomorrow will reveal. The switch was supposed to mark a new age of austerity but has proved a burden at a time when the FA was under severe financial pressure following the collapse of Setanta and the ongoing need to underwrite Wembley. The transfer to Wembley will produce savings but it will take four years to recoup the one-off hit. The accounts for 2009 show the extent of the financial whirlwind that hit the FA during a period when its wage bill was also rising due to the recruitment, in 2007, of Fabio Capello and his extensive backroom staff to coach the England team. The FA's inability to find a tenant for its former premises at Soho Square and, more significantly, the impact of Setanta going bust along with one of its overseas broadcasting partners, left a £60m hole to fill between 2010 and 2013. The governing body has sought to deal with that by cutting its overheads by 10%, reducing the FA Cup prize fund and other measures. The one-off hit of £17m brought about by the move to Wembley is based on the forecast loss over the remainder of the lease at Soho Square. It is believed that the FA has subsequently negotiated a deal with its former landlord to exit the lease by paying a kill fee. Insiders says the transfer to Wembley will save £4.5m a year on an ongoing basis. That figure is made up of £3m saved on the rent and rates that would have been due at Soho Square and £1.5m per year saved on operating costs at its new home. The accounts also lay bare the painful legacy of the loans taken out to fund the construction of the £757m national stadium. The 2009 figures show the FA made total payments of more than £30m to its Wembley National Stadium Limited subsidiary. The FA general secretary, Alex Horne, said that the FA had budgeted to continue to subsidise Wembley to the tune of £20m per annum in 2010 and 2011 and £12m a year in 2012 and 2013. Executives at WNSL insist they will break even by 2014, at which point profits should begin to flow back to the FA. As part of a 2008 refinancing, the FA also extended a £31.5m bridging loan to WNSL. But Horne was also able to claim that the money flowing into the game from the FA had increased by £16m on the previous year to £103m. That was based on a £52m increase in turnover to £314m, thanks mainly to an increase in broadcasting revenues that flowed from ITV and Setanta before the latter went bust. Horne said he was "proud that we have been able to invest in the game at the rate of over £2m per week". The accounts also show the extent to which the FA's wage bill continued to rise during the year, from £37.6m to £42.6m, as did the number of staff it employs, from 544 to 568. It puts the former down to the appointment of Capello and the latter to the fact that an increased number of Tesco Skills Coaches, paid for through a sponsorship deal, are included in the total. Horne has largely attempted to make savings without cutting posts but that approach may come under scrutiny given the pressure on the wider economy. WNSL's accounts, also released tomorrow , showed it had reduced pre-tax losses from £31.1m to £15.6m. Its operational performance was described as "exceptional" despite continuing problems over the Wembley pitch. Further progress was made on selling the remaining box and premium seats, taking them to 91% occupancy. But the real test will come when the Club Wembley contracts, responsible for two thirds of Wembley's revenue, come up for renewal in 2017. And the legacy of its chaotic and unweildy construction will endure until at least 2023, when the loans taken out to fund its construction are due to be fully repaid. According to the 2009 accounts, it still owes £309m to the bank under the terms of a refinancing agreement signed in 2008 and £62.4m to the FA. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH LANCASTER GATE DOES IT MATTER WHERE A COMPUTER SYSTEM IS SITED /BLOODY DISGRACE
