Kev79: Agreed Steve - it's called a 'beam-back' (to use the FC vernacular) and the cost of hiring a couple of screens would easily be negated with interest should, say, 30,000 fans turn up wanting to pay £5 each.

City used to do it at Maine Road for big away games, apparently, and are hoping to do it from next season now that the huge big screens have been purchased.... (15/05 21:44)

Stevemanics: I think one possible solution to the big screen issue - for the Champions League final at least - would be for United to have the game showing on big screens in Old Trafford. (Maybe they already are, in which case ignore this suggestion.) I'm sure many fans would be happy to pay a small entrance fee to watch the game in the ground. (15/05 21:32)

Ian: Er, opposite of what Stu was saying, that is. Oh how confusing... (15/05 21:17)

Ian: Hmmm... Rob knows me, and I assume precisely the opposite! So that's one down... (15/05 21:14)

Kev79: Sadly Rob, no matter how enjoyable i is to suck up to stereo-types, that simply isn't true........ (15/05 20:44)

Rob: "there is an arrogant assumption that Manchester = Man U fans"

Pardon?? Everyone I know assumes it's precisely the opposite! (15/05 20:18)

nbs: As an aside Manchester City Council have decided in the wake of last night's carnage not to erect big screens in the city centre for the Champions League final, prompting fury among United fans. I do sympathise with them, as this is the best opportunity to have a carnival atmosphere. However, I can't help but feel big screens are a dangerous precedent for club matches - there is an arrogant assumption that Manchester = Man U fans but that is simply ludicrous. And without the amount of hostility to rival fans I have experienced up here I am sure there would be incidents if any Chelsea fans were daft enough to show up. (15/05 19:40)

nbs: "Most people would rather gouge their eyes out than have to sit through one of their games".
I'm sure the viewing figures for the Champions League final will in no way invalidate your point.
But maybe it explains why you seem so blind to their quality.
At the end of the day you have zero objectivity and therefore zero credibility. If it was West Ham or Middlesbrough playing like Chelsea do you and everyone would be raving they were one of the division's more watchable sides, a list incidentally probably led by Spurs and Villa. (15/05 16:51)

nbs: Ian, you have got a point about goals, but unfortunately there has yet to be invented a better objective measure for entertainment value than number of goals scored.
Also, as a nominal central defender myself, I think it's symptomatic of attitudes in England today where tackling is outlawed, balls are as light as beach balls and yellow cards issued for minimal contact that the ability to defend well is derided as anti-football.
There is a big difference. (15/05 16:43)

Ade: NBS - You're arguing that this apple is definitely an orange.

We're not saying Chelsea aren't effective. When they got a goal difference of +50, they were clearly a well-oiled football machine. It's just that they are so dull to watch, most people would rather gouge their eyes out than have to sit through one of their games. (15/05 16:39)