By on November 5, 2014

manchester-united-team-los-angeles-galaxy-la_3177246

Chevrolet may be sponsoring football club Manchester United (while also pulling out of the European market), but it doesn’t mean the footballers are interested in what their sponsors are selling.

The Daily Mail (yes, I know – CA) reports the 15 Chevrolets delivered to the club back in April — including Camaros and Corvette Stingrays — haven’t been driven in anger or on the high street by any of the players on the team. A source stated the cars, when not sleeping in the Carrington Training Centre’s parking lot, were only driven by the training ground staff.

Instead, the team roll up in more European fare: Man U captain Wayne Rooney waves the Union Jack proudly in his “Overfinch” Range Rover, midfielder Marouane Fellani opts for the Teutonic precision of his Mercedes SUV, and striker Robin van Persie pulls up for practice in a Porsche 911. Only team manager Louis van Gaal drives a Chevy — a Captiva, to be exact — but that belongs to him.

Though a Chevrolet representative stated the players were under no obligation to drive any of the 15 vehicles delivered — the rep called the provision a “voluntary drive programme” — the move isn’t likely sitting well with the brand, who paid £350 million ($560 million USD) in 2012 to sponsor the team over seven years.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

56 Comments on “Man U’s Finest Ignore Chevy’s Offering For Their Own Rides...”


  • avatar
    Detroit-X

    GM Marketing bungled in a yet another way. Coming soon to a textbook near you.

    Next week, if one car gets driven, there will be a news release braying, “GM free car use up 100%!!!”

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    Great timing “Chevrolet ” was drawn as a nameplate from the UK, just before this

  • avatar
    jrmason

    Can’t say I blame the blokes.

    560 Million is a drop in the bucket compared to the 10.5 BILLION we the tax payers lost during the bail out. Way to spend wisely, Government Motors.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      The government knows better than you what should be done with your money. In this case, it was used to pay off the UAW by making their pensions whole while non-union employees got a haircut. Otherwise, the bailout would not have cost a dime. That’s how corruption works. More government, more dirty deals.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        And corporations are not even more prone to dirty deals??????

        What about the S & L fiasco. Or the meltdown of the banks? Or Madoff and Enron and Tyco, etc ad nauseum.

        At least as proven last night, ‘the government’ is answerable to the citizens.

        Corporations are not.

        • 0 avatar
          ScarecrowRepair

          Corporations are accountable to the market and to the law, and can go bankrupt.

          Government is accountable to nobody. If you think the lip service in the press says otherwise, you have been not been paying attention.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Corporations are answerable to customers. Who can take their money elsewhere.

          Government, OTOH, answer to anyone. They’ll just take the money they want from you, whether you particularly feel their service is worth it or not.

          Saying you’re a “public servant” on TV, doesn’t make you one. All that means, is that instead of being just a leech, you’re a leech that lies.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        If you want a smaller government, you may be interested to see the following statistics on US federal employment:
        – During the Carter administration, the total number of federal employees decreased by 1%
        – But Reagan increased federal employment by 7%
        – The first Bush reduced it by 7%
        – It declined by 16% during Clinton’s administration,
        – But then rose again by 2% during the second Bush presidency

        Sometimes the rhetoric doesn’t always match the actions.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Keep quoting statistics which favor your team and reinforce the beliefs of your professors which you have adopted.

          The federal government has been growing massively since FDR. Nothing has stopped it. Nothing will. Be happy, not defensive.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            OK, well, the fact is that there were 5.4M federal employees in 1962, and there were 4.4M in 2010.

            It’s nice that you have opinions — and sad that you have insults — but those are the facts.

            If you have something constructive to add, feel free.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            VoGo, statistics and darned statistics – look at the massive “contractor” defined offshoot of Fed.gov that essentially is the same thing, that has grown exponentially (see Maryland-Virginia-D.C. Contractor Alley) over that same time frame you reference.

            Now, and more importantly, given grants and shifts in funding to states, look at the EXPONENTIAL growth in the # of government employees being hired by states, counties, cities, townships & villages over the same time frame you reference.

            Now, combine the three over these same three categories of “employees” working directly for or at behest of government time frame you reference –

            Yeeeaah.

            Government employees, however you wish to disingenuously argue otherwise, HAVE EXPLODED LIKE A MUSHROOM CLOUD.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I understand why you are comparing the federal government workforce from 1962 to 2010, but your numbers are flawed.

            That drop is entirely because the military is smaller than it was in 1962. Civilian government ranks, in 2010, were up 300K employees from 1962.

            We had a drop of 1.3 million people in the armed forces from 1962-current.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Federal spending during the Obama presidency has averaged about 8% of GDP.

            Federal spending during the Reagan presidency averaged about 10% of GDP.

            Federal spending during the 1950s averaged about 15% of GDP.

            No need to allow facts to get in the way of a bad argument.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            DW,
            I don’t have stats for contractors. Perhaps there are more; I don’t know.

            For states, I looked at my own, Massachusetts, where state employment grew from 111K in 1990 to 123K in 2014, a gain of 10%, or less than 1% annually. Massachusetts may not be typical, but given its reputation as a high tax state, it is likely at the high end.

            Maybe your opinions are skewed by what you read in the MSM, which is typically an assortment of anecdotes, and rarely based on hard data.

            bball,
            Yes, the decline in federal employment has been in the military – it doesn’t mean that my numbers are flawed, only that there is another layer of analysis available.

            I don’t understand your point – is it that there is no bureaucracy in the armed forces? That soldiers don’t count as employees?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I have a comment that may show up eventually, but federal spending as a percentage of GDP is about one-fifth lower now than it was during the Reagan administration and about half of what it was during the 1950s. You probably won’t read that on Breitbart or Zero Hedge, but the facts are what they are.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Here is census.gov link that allows one to track “official” government employees (again, not counting contractors, where’s there’s been a mushroom cloud spike) at both federal & state levels.

            http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/

            Look at total state/county/city/township/village employment today versus 1964 and, even in consideration of nominal and % changes in “official” federal employees, claim government employment has done anything but absolutely exploded.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            VoGo-

            All the arguements you made about federal government employment is due to the rise and fall of troop levels. I think we need to dig deeper into that data.

            They count as employees and the military certainly has a bureaucracy. I just don’t think the amount of federal employees is the be all end all of what is a “large” or “small” federal government. Technology has made it so the 4.4 million employees can do more work than the 5.4 million employees in 1962.

            I also view the military seperately from the civilian portion of government. The rise and fall of troop levels has less to do with the size of government, and more to do with conflicts, technological advancement, and the end of conscription. If you deployed my platoon from 2006 to Vietnam in 1968, we could replace an entire company (We’d also own the night instead of the VietCong).

            We don’t disgree when it comes to the concept of the federal government’s size though. It’s about the same as it’s been for awhile. We just spend our money in different ways and on different stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            bball,
            Great points, I think we are aligned. One thing I would add is that in 1962, there were 186M Americans, whereas today there are more than 300M – 67% higher.

            So the fact that non-military employee counts are just 12 % higher than 1962 despite tons of new programs to administer shows a lot of productivity gains.

            Probably not enough, but that’s another story.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You ought to remember that this country has added about 130 million people since 1962. We’ve also added to the infrastructure, so there are more things to maintain than there used to be.

            On a per capita basis, government is smaller than it once was. Those facts don’t match the political rhetoric, but the numbers are easily verified.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I agree that their should be more federal government employees. Part of it is that that many of the people working for the federal government, such as those running computer systems that have replaced people, are not federal employees.

            7.5 million people are working for private contractors instead of the federal government. That has to be higher than 1962. The Department of Energy spends 90% of its budget on contractors that manage the department’s sites and carry out its missions. That’s ridiculous.

            We cut people from the budget but double what Lockheed-Martin gets over the last ten years.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            In response to Pch101’s comments, I have a humble suggestion; Can we – even NOT including the number of government contractors (who are essentially direct replacement government workers for taxpayer purposes) – at least use a ratio when discussing this topic?

            How many federal, state and local workers were there per 100 Americans in 1964?

            How many federal, state and local workers per 100 Americans are there in 2014?

            (Again, this does not include the number of contractors subcontracted by government agencies, which is massive.)

            The ratio of government workers today per 100 Americans is MUCH higher than it was in 1964.

            It’s even more staggering if one uses a ratio of government workers to private sector employees.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            DW-

            I don’t think you’ll like the federal goverment answer:

            1.33 government employees per 100 citizens in 1962

            0.86 government employees per 100 citizens in 2012

            That is removing the military from the equation.

            With the military added:

            1962 – 2.88 per 100
            2012 – 1.37 per 100

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            I could use a burger…

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Government spending relative to our national income has declined. Irrespective of the employee-contractor ratio, the spending comprises less of our economy than it did when the supposed small-government president was in charge.

            I realize that this fact does not conform to the narrative to which you are accustomed, but this simply a fact.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            bball – Do it again, but include federal + state + county + city/township/village municipal employees.

            Here’s a hint: There are 20+ million of these government employees as of 2014, while there are 308 million American (and approx 148 million Americans employed overall).

            Run those same numbers/ratios for 1964.

            If you are able to estimate and include government “contractors,” which nearly didn’t exist in ’64, even better!

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            And just a reminder, quoting part of my original statement:

            “How many federal, state and local workers were there per 100 Americans in 1964?

            How many federal, state and local workers per 100 Americans are there in 2014?”

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Jesus man. I know you were looking for the total, but the federal numbers are so much easier to find.

            Well…

            including state government:

            1962: 3.67 per 100
            2012: 2.75 per 100

            I cannot find good municipal numbers for 1962. Current numbers show there are around 21 million government workers in the US. So that is 6.7 government workers per 100 citizens. There are a ton of local employees. More than the feds and states combined. There has been over 10 million local government workers since 93/94.

            If you add the government contractors:

            9.4 per 100 citizens

            If you look at just those working:

            19.45 per 100 working citizens or 20% of working people work for some sort of government entity.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            bball, thanks.

            I’m not trying to be a d!xk.

            An honest question to you and everyone: Assuming 1 in 5 employed people in the US work for government directly, or for a contractor that does, or that even 1 in 8 do, for that matter, is that really acceptable, wise, efficient – especially given our national debt and current account deficits on a continual, year after year basis?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The federal government today comprises a smaller portion of our economy than it did under Reagan.

            I realize that you have your memes and they are important to you, but the facts attached to those memes don’t conform with your version of reality.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            You’re being obtuse.

            It’s not just “federal” government employees; it’s all government employees plus off-book ones (i.e. “contractors”), that we’re discussing.

            If you can’t comprehend that total government employee growth has exploded over the last 50 years, you’re in denial of reality.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Since 2009, all government spending as a percentage of GDP has averaged 20%.

            During the Reagan administration, it averaged 21%.

            During the 1950’s, it averaged 22%.

            If you want to start banging on about obtuseness, go have a look into your mirror.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            “Since 2009, all government spending as a percentage of GDP has averaged 20%.

            During the Reagan administration, it averaged 21%.

            During the 1950’s, it averaged 22%.”

            Now you’re just being disingenuous.

            http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.html

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Talk about obtuse.

            This illustrates the difference between us. When I want to know the facts about GDP, I refer to data from the BLS, the agency that calculates it and compiles it. I take the base data in a spreadsheet, crunch the numbers and get the results.

            When you want to know the “facts,” you refer to a right-wing blog.

            It should be obvious that one approach is better than the other.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Show me your data.

            Refer to a’Figure 1. Total government spending (including Federal, State, and Local) as a percentage of GDP from 1909 – 2009:”

            http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/ending_tax_demagoguery.html

            Where’s your data to disprove the accuracy of that in Figure 1?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So you attempt to disprove my point by referring to another right-wing website. Surely you must see the irony.

            I’m not going to bother with your “source,” when I’m going directly to the right place. There’s no point in using hearsay when the data is readily available from the original source.

            The BLS provides historical annual GDP data going back to 1929. It would behoove you to learn how to find it, and to know enough Excel that you can calculate the results.

            This should not be that difficult. If you know what to look for, then you should be able to find this stuff in about one minute.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Here’s FRED chart porn proving my point from your Patron Saint, Saint Krugman (Fed Reserve tables won’t load on my tablet for some reason) –

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/recent-trends-in-government-spending/

            You don’t understand what a monopoly is, and now you’ve proven your ineptness in understanding government spending trends (in both nominal and real terms).

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I have no idea why you’re going on about the Fed or Paul Krugman, when the GDP data comes from the BLS.

            The BLS has a website. They’re kind enough to put the data into Excel format, which makes calculating this stuff quite easy, at least for those who understand it.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Yet, no matter whether that particular count went up or down, the total amount of looting they were responsible for, went up regardless of administration. As did the number of laws. And number of lawyers. And size of the banksterocracy…..

          Those quaint 90’s era Somalis aren’t as hip as some, but they not only managed a reduction of close to 100% in leech headcount, but an almost corresponding reduction in the other evils as well. It ain’t called the cradle of civilization for nothing, I guess…

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      A depression could have cost this country a good $50 trillion (with a “t”) or more in lost GDP, and would have required an enormous expansion in benefits to cover the tens of millions of Americans who would have lost their jobs and their homes.

      $10 billion was a bargain. You really have no idea how close this country came to collapse. And we would have pulled down the rest of the world with us, which would have made things that much worse.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        I’m fine with people criticizing the bailouts, IF they offer a credible alternative. Otherwise, it’s just more whining.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Not bailing out. It’s really simple. Been done before. Never caused the world to collapse. Didn’t funnel billions to well connected idiots, though, which is of course the problem with that alternative.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Hey, that’s what the man on TV says, so just bend over and smile. If you moan really nicely, The Man on TV may even tell you you are one of those sofitemecated ones who understand how important it is to be raped when massa gommiment and his banksterbuddies needs some relief.

        Of course, in reality stealing money from at least potentially competent people to pay off proven incompetents, do nothing good for anyone other than the targeted incompetents themselves. And bailing out value destroying business and funding models, only serve to create more of them, at the expense of less destructive ones. Which is exactly how those too stupid, or unwilling, to go through the hassle of creating any value prefer it.

  • avatar
    raresleeper

    Well hell if they don’t want them, they can always make a vehicular donation to the Raresleeper Hoonage Fund.

    I am a bit surprised that the soccer hooligans aren’t tearing up their towns with these things. Why not?

    Sheesh. Should’ve given them Cruzes, then.

    Okay, okay… diesel Cruzes. I’ll be nice. The pricing of petrol is still probably a killer over there.

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    You are a soccer rock star and you show up to a club party in a soccer club loaner, after having wiped off the prior player’s sperm from the steering wheel. Yeah, that makes sense.

  • avatar
    TR4

    The Daily Mail article shows the players’ Porsche, Range Rovers and Mercedes as RHD. I wonder if the Corvettes and Camaros were RHD?

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      No they were LHD, which makes no sense in the UK. Insurance companies will not insure someone driving around in a LHD vehicle in the UK

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Mr Ryan, sir:

        1. Several years ago, you informed us that the world supply of GM DOHC V6 engines were all made by Holden in Australia.

        You were completely incorrect. Most are made at the GM plant in Tonawanda, New York.

        2. Today, you inform us that you cannot insure a LHD vehicle in the UK.

        You are completely incorrect. Merely Google “car insurance uk for lhd cars”, and you will find any number of companies in the United Kingdom who do so. In other words, you are completely incorrect yet again.

        I do not know where you live in Australia, but my sincere suggestion is that you have your local water supply tested for known pollutants. It might help you.

  • avatar
    TW5

    Americans refuse to watch Europe’s subpar interpretation of sport. If Man U players refuse to drive free Chevrolets, they are merely restoring cultural equity.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Two forms of xenophobia are exhibited by the post and the replies.

    The first is the usual Euro attitude shown by the Man U players towards American cars – They’re awful.

    The second is the usual American attitude shown towards football, as it is known in the entire rest of the world – Soccer is awful.

    Both are demonstrably the attitudes of folk with their heads buried so far in the sand that the available oxygen levels are only barely enough to sustain minimal levels of sentient life.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.
  • Corey Lewis: You do British condescension so well!
  • Old_WRX: If they don’t offer that interior in magenta crushed velour fabric it would be such a shame.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber