egg

Some sense at last. The article promotes self sufficiency which is fine. If he takes cash to the detriment of the club he's ripe for a kicking but until then I don't understand the issue.

Why on earth would you presume that I would prefer to see us relegated, if you want a discussion, at least be sensible. I don't want us to be relegated and with our management and budget, we can be competitive in that mini league below the top 6. If you stand back and look at things objectively that's possible. The issue over the last couple of years has not been the mysterious owner, its been shocking management and poor player purchases. Had Hoedt, Carillo, Boufal, Ings, Moi etc been the players we all expected, we'd have had a cracking season last year. The fact that the signings were all rubbish and we under performed isn't down to Gao (who released the cash for those signings) but let's not let the truth get in the way of personal agenda.

What's my point? The FT article highlights that Gao thinks we should be self sufficient. I have asked what the issue is with that. The responses go on about net spend winners, Bournemouth, community club, etc. None of thay has any relevance to the point about the club owner wanting his (not our) club to be self sufficient. Accept it, moaning won't change anything. Anyone with a degree of business acumen can understand where Gao is coming from. Putting X millions into the club will not yield a return for him. I understand that, and my pointing out the obvious does not make me "the problem". The problem is naive and expectant fans who can't comprehend why somebody doesn't want to sink millions into a football club that he won't get back. Gao motives are not "ambivalent". He's a Chinese business man. He wants status. He has it. He wants a long term blue chip investment. He has it. Whether he has other motives, who knows, but in his time with us he's had the balls to wield the axe when needed, he's hired a fantastic manager, he's spent money last summer, we (apparently) are busy already this summer. Stop flapping.

All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

You're not supposed to look at the actual facts mate, just the bits that make us look like we don't spend. The fact that we spent more last summer than we received is irrelevant also, apparently.

Del, you've always come across as a bright fella. You know better than to confuse investment of owners funds (which is what I'm talking about) and utilising revenue (which is what you're talking about). You're comparing apples with cauliflowers mate.

Nobody "invests" in a business without a return. Explain to me how gifting X million to our club will result in added of value of at least X. I'll save you the time - it won't. Whatever gets spent, we'll still be a club who's best possible season will see us finish 7th. The last couple of seasons will not reassure Gao that "investing" in players is sensible - carillo, hoedt, boufal, etc, ain't an investment.

In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.

So your expectation is not self sufficiency, but repeated capital introductions from the owner?

There's no evidence that the club has borrowed - that's self suffiency on my book. I repeat the question, what is wrong with self sufficiency?

It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club. I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

I've read it, and read this thread. Could someone please explain the negatives of us wanting to be a self sufficient club? Seems better than a debt laden club to me.

Yep. Ramsey is not a wing back type. He's very defensive and a CB who has been pushed to RB. I like him personally, I think he's got something about him and he's got a chance.

There's nothing wrong with the mobile version of the site using chtome - fits perfectly on one page (as per Tapatalk) but it's not **** like Tapatalk.

If other clubs are interested, as rumoured, and we go in with a mickey mouse offer we stand to lose the player. Business deals don't get over the line by insulting the other party, especially if someone else is prepared be more realistic. By all means chance your arm with an offer, but you can't take the p1ss.

Very good point. You surely don't stick a footballer on a 7 hour flight for a medical when you can get to him. I'm taking the rumour with a pinch of salt.

If we expect to sign him it's a pathetic offer.

I think it was a question.

Gotta feel for the fella, he's clearly an addict and is suffering big time. The way he's going it's either recovery or death, but he won't get well if he doesn't accept he's ****ed and accept help.

ZX 81

This. If he had the ability to improve is last season, Ralph would have played him.

I suspect he'll know that better players at bigger clubs will earn more, and have more chance of winning something. The bigger danger is in being dropped in favour of the likes of lingard - it'll confirm that he's s got more chance of selection if he's at a bigger club.

To suggest Mccarthy's performances after long absences has nothing to do with coaching is just silly. It's only in here where negative performance is down to coaching but that positive performances isn't. Pathetic.

So what/who was the reason for Mccarthy huge improvement? Osmosis? Or Watson?

Doesn't Watson do much more than 'coach' our keepers. I'm pretty sure that RH said recently that he did the corner routines where we have looked decent. In terms of keepers coaching, Mccarthy tailed off last season but before that he'd come on massively and Watson has to be due credit for that. Forster was half decent when he arrived, no more than that, and there are strong rumours that his down turn in fortunes are health related rather than anything else. What's this assessment that he's sh1te based on?