iv not read it before and stumbled across it when i was lurking on bluemoon.Its a four year old article? I think a lot has changed in four years.
AIG on the munich tribute above the megastore suggests otherwise though surely ?
aig put that tribute up, not united. as such, i dont see how united profited.
The £50,000 was what they got in 1998, not in the early 60s.In the same vein, Manchester United provided financial sums to the families that were affected (i would imagine 50,000 pounds would have been worth quite a bit more in the early 60s than it is now).
During the 25th anniversary of the disaster, players wore the regular kit - complete with Sharp logos and Adidas branding and the programme featured a big Sharp logo too. No-one batted an eyelid about the "commercialisation" of the occasion. Also, as insensitive as it was to incorporate the logo, AIG paid for that mural. They'd have been better off not bothering though. I don't see how it did either them or United any favours - financially or otherwise.AIG on the munich tribute above the megastore suggests otherwise though surely ?
I think that bears thinking about. Just 15 years earlier and many families in the country would have been in similar situations to the relatives and survivors of Munich. Certainly, they were treated shabbily, but I wonder what happened to other players for other clubs who found themselves unable to play for whatever reason? Presumably in a very similar and equally shabby manner. I think it is more endemic of the times than of one particular club.I don't think it can be disputed that Munich was the key moment in United's history - as the article rightly points out, it was the event which made Manchester United more than just a football club. Certainly the way the club handled it was poor - it wasn't just the players whose careers had been ended who were turfed out of their club houses, it was the families of the dead as well. That was out of order whichever way you look at it. A lot of it comes down to it being only 13 years out of the war - people were still just expected to get on with their lives whatever happened.
I wouldn't really say United exploited Munich - and I fail to see in the article how the club did; it's more about how the families were basically left to fend for themselves afterwards. Certainly the 40th anniversary match was poorly handled - the match was sold out before an opponent had even been confirmed (the first time at least), so there was no need to combine it with a Cantona testimonial. For all that's said about him, Cantona taking £90k directly out of the funds the match raised was plain wrong - especially given it meant the families (who it was supposed to be about) got paid less than him.
Looking at it more recently - certainly the relatives shouldn't have to be charged to go into the museum or to get a seat for a game. And the AIG logo shouldn't have been anywhere near that poster, whether United benefitted from it or not
Before 1958, United were - unlike Wolves or Spurs, who had just one one league championship each - already in the top five most successful clubs in the history of English league football. They were the first English club to play in Europe, they were the previous season's league champions, narrowly missing out on a double by losing the FA Cup final. The team contained three of the England team's finest players.YET it is a rich paradox that Munich was perhaps the making of Manchester United.
Before 1958, they were just another English football club, little different to others such as Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur or Wolverhampton Wanderers.
But after 1958, because of the tragic death toll, their name had a unique resonance.
The sympathy lavished on the club led to a worldwide following. The international support was made all the more powerful when United rose like a phoenix from the ashes to dominate English football in the mid-Sixties and win the European Cup with a team including George Best exactly a decade after Munich.
Bollocks. Sympathy alone wins you nothing. Not even a tidal wave of it.Murphy was able to ride a tidal wave of popular sympathy to drag his team to the FA Cup Final at Wembley.
The real issue.Yet the families of those directly affected by Munich, the widows and the survivors, have shared none of the riches - there was no compensation in those days.
As sad as it was for Jackie, his post Munich life was just the same as it would have been had he suffered a career-ending injury during a match. Most players of those days simply went back to a normal 1950s working life. Being a pub landlord was something may ex-footballers did after retiring from the game. There was no massive pot of money from astronomical wages to fall back on and TV punditry as a career was still some time off being an option.Jackie Blanchflower, for example, who smashed his pelvis, damaged his internal organs and almost lost his right arm in the crash, was forced to lead a sad, twilight existence after Munich ended his career, working as a bookmaker and a pub landlord.
As sad as that is, it's the case with almost all of the displays in the museum, not just the items from players associated with Munich. A friend of mine is friends with Norman Whiteside who has "loaned" the museum several items. We asked to photograph some of his old match shirts, which he agreed to but the club will charge us to do this as they are in the museum, even though they are not actually theirs. There is definately some exploitation there and it could be easily rectified.'Most of dad's stuff is in there, but if I want to go and see the exhibition, I have to pay a fiver,' says Laurie Blanchflower, the son of Jackie.
Again, there is something in this only in relation to the (Louis and Martin) Edwards family. Had Willie Satinoff not died, Louis would not have been able to take his vacant seat on the board and not been in the position to gobble up the majority of shares and take over as chairman. As for Munich being the source of United's wealth that is bollocks too. For 18 months following the disaster, attendances rose by about 20%. After that they went back to what they had been before, rising only after later successes. The exploits of United in the 1960s was the real reason for the global recognition of the club as a football side rather than a news story, and it is that which United is famous for the most, not for the disaster. Regional and national recognition and reputation came in the dozen years prior to Munich.It is undeniable that their agony helped to turn United into a temple of wealth
Yeah, this article is not anti-United in any way.For all its present tribulations, with uneven form and disciplinary problems on the field and boardroom rows off it, Manchester United is still the wealthiest, most successful club in the world.
Just as was the case for Torino... oh, actually, no it wasn't, was it. Most people have never heard of them, despite being just as successful in Italian football as United were in English football at the time of the Superga air disaster. Perhaps it was the first time many people outside of Europe had heard of United, but that was about it. Actually, I'd be interested in finding out how widely reported it was in the likes of the USA and China etc where we currently have a lot of support.That rise to global stature was started in the desolation of Munich.
No matter what the club or anyone else does, that debt can never be paid, they can never be brought back. I'm sure the club would have prefered, just as the families would have that the disaster never happened.Some would say, it is a debt that has never been properly paid.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users