|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 28, 2018 21:13:41 GMT
Sorry - you've lost me there... A debt of 70m to an owner with no desire to call it in is hardly an issue. Same with the ground - at no point has Coates given any indication that he's about to evict the club. Unless a new owner were to pay off the debt, buy the ground and gift it to the club we'd be no better off. Unless of course you expect the club to do that off their own bat which would simply leave it with less ready cash to do things like buy players and pay their wages. Hardly a brilliant idea if we are planning on a quick return should we go down, It's far more likely any sugar daddy with no ties with the area would want to secure their investment in the club - which would mean keeping the club in debt (rather than transfer the debt to themselves) and keep the ground as an asset to be sold off if things go wrong. Your blind optimism in changing things for the hell of it is touching but flies in the face of experience. Maybe when the Chinese owners have ditched the sinking ship down the road they can give us a try. What can possibly go wrong? Ah that's ok then. No, I want the club and ground to remain linked and have the covenant (might be the wrong word) that you can have that means the two have to stay together. Alarm bells rang when we refused to do that and Scholes poured scorn on those that tried to get it done. I don't want new owners yet ta. Just for PC to step aside from running it as he's made a hash of it for the last 3 years. You can analyse, scrutinise and get really anal about the current predicament but in my opinion it's down to two things... 1. The signing of three expensive duffers. 2. The cocky, brain-fart decision of Sparky to play wing back without any wing backs. The blame for No1 we will probably never know. The blame for No2 is firmly and squarely in Sparky's court.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 28, 2018 21:16:41 GMT
Ah that's ok then. No, I want the club and ground to remain linked and have the covenant (might be the wrong word) that you can have that means the two have to stay together. Alarm bells rang when we refused to do that and Scholes poured scorn on those that tried to get it done. I don't want new owners yet ta. Just for PC to step aside from running it as he's made a hash of it for the last 3 years. You can analyse, scrutinise and get really anal about the current predicament but in my opinion it's down to two things... 1. The signing of three expensive duffers. 2. The cocky, brain-fart decision of Sparky to play wing back without any wing backs. The blame for No1 we will probably never know. The blame for No2 is firmly and squarely in Sparky's court. 1) Hughes shouldn't have been here to sign one of those 3. 2) Hughes shouldn't have been here. 3) What's the fuss?
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 28, 2018 21:28:15 GMT
You can analyse, scrutinise and get really anal about the current predicament but in my opinion it's down to two things... 1. The signing of three expensive duffers. 2. The cocky, brain-fart decision of Sparky to play wing back without any wing backs. The blame for No1 we will probably never know. The blame for No2 is firmly and squarely in Sparky's court. 1) Hughes shouldn't have been here to sign one of those 3. 2) Hughes shouldn't have been here. 3) What's the fuss? Well..err ok. I'm not saying Hughes shouldn't have been sacked sooner or PC had a bit of a blower with his daft comment. What I'm saying is that those two specific points are in my mind the main reasons we are where we are. I'm not even sure if PC actually "runs" the Club these days. From what I'm told Junior seems to be the main man as far as decisions are concerned. Who knows. It's a sad mess from being the mid table Premier League role model to the Premier League clusterfuck in such a short space of time.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 28, 2018 21:48:03 GMT
Sorry - you've lost me there... A debt of 70m to an owner with no desire to call it in is hardly an issue. Same with the ground - at no point has Coates given any indication that he's about to evict the club. Unless a new owner were to pay off the debt, buy the ground and gift it to the club we'd be no better off. Unless of course you expect the club to do that off their own bat which would simply leave it with less ready cash to do things like buy players and pay their wages. Hardly a brilliant idea if we are planning on a quick return should we go down, It's far more likely any sugar daddy with no ties with the area would want to secure their investment in the club - which would mean keeping the club in debt (rather than transfer the debt to themselves) and keep the ground as an asset to be sold off if things go wrong. Your blind optimism in changing things for the hell of it is touching but flies in the face of experience. Maybe when the Chinese owners have ditched the sinking ship down the road they can give us a try. What can possibly go wrong? Ah that's ok then. No, I want the club and ground to remain linked and have the covenant (might be the wrong word) that you can have that means the two have to stay together. Alarm bells rang when we refused to do that and Scholes poured scorn on those that tried to get it done. I don't want new owners yet ta. Just for PC to step aside from running it as he's made a hash of it for the last 3 years. Not this on the ground again...... Bet 365 bought the ground, Bet 365 don't own 100% of the football club so why would they effectively give away a percentage of the ground for free to the other shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 28, 2018 21:56:36 GMT
Ah that's ok then. No, I want the club and ground to remain linked and have the covenant (might be the wrong word) that you can have that means the two have to stay together. Alarm bells rang when we refused to do that and Scholes poured scorn on those that tried to get it done. I don't want new owners yet ta. Just for PC to step aside from running it as he's made a hash of it for the last 3 years. Not this on the ground again...... Bet 365 bought the ground, Bet 365 don't own 100% of the football club so why would they effectively give away a percentage of the ground for free to the other shareholders. What percentage does Humphreys own? And they'd do it because it's absolutely the right and proper thing for a football club to do.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 28, 2018 21:58:25 GMT
1) Hughes shouldn't have been here to sign one of those 3. 2) Hughes shouldn't have been here. 3) What's the fuss? Well..err ok. I'm not saying Hughes shouldn't have been sacked sooner or PC had a bit of a blower with his daft comment. What I'm saying is that those two specific points are in my mind the main reasons we are where we are. I'm not even sure if PC actually "runs" the Club these days. From what I'm told Junior seems to be the main man as far as decisions are concerned. Who knows. It's a sad mess from being the mid table Premier League role model to the Premier League clusterfuck in such a short space of time. Hughes shouldn't have been given the chance for Wimmer and 3 at the back. That is on Coates. He should have been sacked in the tunnel after the Arsenal game. That's a way bigger mistake. I don't necessarily want Coates jnr running it either.....
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 28, 2018 22:52:14 GMT
Well..err ok. I'm not saying Hughes shouldn't have been sacked sooner or PC had a bit of a blower with his daft comment. What I'm saying is that those two specific points are in my mind the main reasons we are where we are. I'm not even sure if PC actually "runs" the Club these days. From what I'm told Junior seems to be the main man as far as decisions are concerned. Who knows. It's a sad mess from being the mid table Premier League role model to the Premier League clusterfuck in such a short space of time. Hughes shouldn't have been given the chance for Wimmer and 3 at the back. That is on Coates. He should have been sacked in the tunnel after the Arsenal game. That's a way bigger mistake. I don't necessarily want Coates jnr running it either..... Your timelines out of kilter mate. He was three at the backing way before Wimmer.
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Mar 28, 2018 23:57:57 GMT
I'm sure a lot of clubs may be at the wire for their FFP. But they do need to be careful or else they could be in serious trouble for example pompey. There's nothing in that article that says they are skint. I can see that there may be no more money for wages due to rules and I can see there may have to be efficiency cuts but that's how business runs. I think gufted should stick to the Dandy
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Mar 29, 2018 1:19:17 GMT
It went tits up for us on the pitch and the training ground. And that's that. Why do you think that Is ? The players on the pitch aren’t good enough , because they represent chronic under investment at this level There wasn't under investment. In the last few years Imbo was 18m. Bera was 12m. Badou 14m. Wimmer 18m. Allo 13m There's 75 million quid there. That some of them didn't work out is a different matter entirely and not down to anyone in the boardroom. What do you think Premier League footballers get paid in? Fresh fucking air? It's an expensive exercise and you think just throwing more money at it would be the only solution? Really? Who decided to use wing backs when there wasn't a decent wing back at the club? Who persisted with incapable wing backs when they didn't add anything to the forward play anyway? On whose watch did we become such a soft touch? We got twatted by Man City, but OK, it is a magnificent Man City team. Then a few weeks later Burnley go there and at least make them work for a win. We rolled over too often. You can sort of acknowledge it now and then but it became so regular it was pathetic. When we hit the dead end who couldn't get the players back and firing again? The problem wasn't a lack of investment... it was a manager unable to get out from a dead end. It's stimulated by environment. At Borussia Dortmund Aubemyang looked like a shit hot wild sexy skilfull showman superstar. At Arsenal he's considerably less extravagant because he's surrounded by a less dynamic mood. Similarly, when we hit our wall several of our players dropped off and the manager couldn't get them back. May 2017 was the ideal time to sack Mark Hughes. My own opinion he had to go was decided finally after we beat Hull 3-1. It felt so unhealthily rare to win. Especially as there was so many comparisons with Mick Mills in 1989. Good at the start then obviously unable to re-generate a team hitting the skids. Given the ruthless way Pulis was dismissed it's surprising Pete Coates repeated the 1989 mistake. Also, given the fact Hughes had for the most part done well for us he would be spared the indignity of a mid season dismissal. But for some reason, despite every single pointer clearly stating otherwise, Pete reckoned Hughes was still the right chap. That was the main boardroom involvement in this fade away not the financial side you keep going on about.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 29, 2018 7:15:16 GMT
Hughes shouldn't have been given the chance for Wimmer and 3 at the back. That is on Coates. He should have been sacked in the tunnel after the Arsenal game. That's a way bigger mistake. I don't necessarily want Coates jnr running it either..... Your timelines out of kilter mate. He was three at the backing way before Wimmer. Normally people go on about Berahino, Imbula and Wimmer, who are you on about?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 29, 2018 18:57:38 GMT
Why do you think that Is ? The players on the pitch aren’t good enough , because they represent chronic under investment at this level There wasn't under investment. In the last few years Imbo was 18m. Bera was 12m. Badou 14m. Wimmer 18m. Allo 13m There's 75 million quid there. That some of them didn't work out is a different matter entirely and not down to anyone in the boardroom. What do you think Premier League footballers get paid in? Fresh fucking air? It's an expensive exercise and you think just throwing more money at it would be the only solution? Really? Who decided to use wing backs when there wasn't a decent wing back at the club? Who persisted with incapable wing backs when they didn't add anything to the forward play anyway? On whose watch did we become such a soft touch? We got twatted by Man City, but OK, it is a magnificent Man City team. Then a few weeks later Burnley go there and at least make them work for a win. We rolled over too often. You can sort of acknowledge it now and then but it became so regular it was pathetic. When we hit the dead end who couldn't get the players back and firing again? The problem wasn't a lack of investment... it was a manager unable to get out from a dead end. It's stimulated by environment. At Borussia Dortmund Aubemyang looked like a shit hot wild sexy skilfull showman superstar. At Arsenal he's considerably less extravagant because he's surrounded by a less dynamic mood. Similarly, when we hit our wall several of our players dropped off and the manager couldn't get them back. May 2017 was the ideal time to sack Mark Hughes. My own opinion he had to go was decided finally after we beat Hull 3-1. It felt so unhealthily rare to win. Especially as there was so many comparisons with Mick Mills in 1989. Good at the start then obviously unable to re-generate a team hitting the skids. Given the ruthless way Pulis was dismissed it's surprising Pete Coates repeated the 1989 mistake. Also, given the fact Hughes had for the most part done well for us he would be spared the indignity of a mid season dismissal. But for some reason, despite every single pointer clearly stating otherwise, Pete reckoned Hughes was still the right chap. That was the main boardroom involvement in this fade away not the financial side you keep going on about. If you are the second lowest spenders for three years out of 5 and 15 and 16 for the other two how do you reconcile that with not underinvesting , some fees yes , but we lost our bottle when some went sour palace for example £32m on benteke , £25m on Sakho we wouldnt be going down with Those two .
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 29, 2018 20:35:52 GMT
Your timelines out of kilter mate. He was three at the backing way before Wimmer. Normally people go on about Berahino, Imbula and Wimmer, who are you on about? What the chuff you on about? We are on about playing three at the back.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 29, 2018 20:47:41 GMT
Normally people go on about Berahino, Imbula and Wimmer, who are you on about? What the chuff you on about? We are on about playing three at the back. It was the word backing and you mentioned the 3 exepensivr players. The three at the back was only really properly implemented this season. So yeah it could have been stopped by our loopy owner sacking him sooner.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Mar 30, 2018 9:26:44 GMT
There wasn't under investment. In the last few years Imbo was 18m. Bera was 12m. Badou 14m. Wimmer 18m. Allo 13m There's 75 million quid there. That some of them didn't work out is a different matter entirely and not down to anyone in the boardroom. What do you think Premier League footballers get paid in? Fresh fucking air? It's an expensive exercise and you think just throwing more money at it would be the only solution? Really? Who decided to use wing backs when there wasn't a decent wing back at the club? Who persisted with incapable wing backs when they didn't add anything to the forward play anyway? On whose watch did we become such a soft touch? We got twatted by Man City, but OK, it is a magnificent Man City team. Then a few weeks later Burnley go there and at least make them work for a win. We rolled over too often. You can sort of acknowledge it now and then but it became so regular it was pathetic. When we hit the dead end who couldn't get the players back and firing again? The problem wasn't a lack of investment... it was a manager unable to get out from a dead end. It's stimulated by environment. At Borussia Dortmund Aubemyang looked like a shit hot wild sexy skilfull showman superstar. At Arsenal he's considerably less extravagant because he's surrounded by a less dynamic mood. Similarly, when we hit our wall several of our players dropped off and the manager couldn't get them back. May 2017 was the ideal time to sack Mark Hughes. My own opinion he had to go was decided finally after we beat Hull 3-1. It felt so unhealthily rare to win. Especially as there was so many comparisons with Mick Mills in 1989. Good at the start then obviously unable to re-generate a team hitting the skids. Given the ruthless way Pulis was dismissed it's surprising Pete Coates repeated the 1989 mistake. Also, given the fact Hughes had for the most part done well for us he would be spared the indignity of a mid season dismissal. But for some reason, despite every single pointer clearly stating otherwise, Pete reckoned Hughes was still the right chap. That was the main boardroom involvement in this fade away not the financial side you keep going on about. If you are the second lowest spenders for three years out of 5 and 15 and 16 for the other two how do you reconcile that with not underinvesting , some fees yes , but we lost our bottle when some went sour palace for example £32m on benteke , £25m on Sakho we wouldnt be going down with Those two . I think we would be going down with those two. Because the entire vibe of the club was a downward trajectory, which is why Mark should have been sacked at the end of last season. Practically, who would provide chances for Benteke? We have very little creativity. Also, being pedantic, you mention them two but Crystal might be going down with them.
|
|